Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SAINT DIONIS BACKCHURCH CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]

Read a second time and committed.

SAINT NICHOLAS ACONS CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]

Read a second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLD PROPERTIES (GROUND RENTS)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the widespread system under which one leaseholder in a block is responsible for collecting ground rents from his neighbours; and whether he will introduce legislation to end this practice.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I have no evidence that such a practice is widespread. In any event there are already statutory provisions under which the person responsible for collecting the rents can free himself from this obligation. I do not think there is a case for further legislation.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Attorney-General aware that this is certainly widespread in my constituency? While I am delighted to know that there are ways of people freeing themselves from this obligation, I shall be very interested if he will send me particulars.

The Attorney-General: I should be delighted to oblige the hon. Member. I shall certainly send him particulars and perhaps we can have a discussion on them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Discretionary Grants (Clothing)

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many discretionary grants for clothing were made by the National Assistance Board during 1962.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In 1962 the Board made 223,000 discretionary lump-sum grants to meet exceptional needs, mainly for clothing.

Miss Herbison: Is it not a fact, since there are almost a quarter of a million of these grants made in one year, that the National Assistance rates must he too low? Surely the Minister must he aware that there are many people who do not make a claim for any such grant but who desperately need it? Will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend to give some consideration to these matters?

Mrs. Thatcher: I think the figures show the flexibility of the National Assistance system to meet special needs as they arise.

Mrs. Slater: How many of these cases are sent in the first place to, say, the W.V.S. before a grant for clothing is made?

Mrs. Thatcher: Since I have been answering from this Box, only three cases have been brought to my attention, and we have quickly remedied the instructions so that people are given a cash grant first if they need it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pneumoconiosis

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many widows whose husbands were in receipt of benefit as persons suffering from pneumoconiosis were denied, during the last five years, either death benefit or an industrial widow's pension as the result of decisions of the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Medical Board.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Mall Macpherson): No widow is denied benefit as a result of decisions of the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Medical Board. The right to


widow's benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme is determined by statutory authorities. Whether a widow receives such benefit or not depends on whether the death of the insured person is found to have been caused or materially accelerated by an accident or disease covered under the Act.

Miss Herbison: Surely the Minister must know that when a man who has been suffering from pneumoconiosis dies a post mortem examination is carried out by the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Medical Board. Surely the Minister is also aware that it is on the result of the decision of that Board given to the statutory authorities that the widow gets or does not get money. Since that is the case, surely the Minister must be aware of the number of widows who are denied this benefit although their husbands suffered from pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, but the opinion of the Pneumoconiosis Medical Board can be challenged under the appeal procedure. The difficulty in providing the hon. Lady with the information she wants is that the Question, if I may say so, contains a fallacy. The fallacy is that people who have an industrial disease necessarily die of it. That is not so.

Miss Herbison: The Question does not contain a fallacy. The Question asks very clearly how many widows have been denied benefit. If the Minister would give some study to these questions he would find that diseases which can be very closely related to pneumoconiosis are indeed found but that the widow is denied benefit. Will he ensure that much greater attention is given to these matters?

Mr. Macpherson: The difficulty is that the hon. Lady is assuming that, where benefit is refused, it is on the basis of the decision, as she called it, of the Pneumoconiosis Medical Board, but that is not so. The Board's opinion can be challenged on appeal, and it is the statutory authority which decides, not the Board.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Arising out of the Minister's reply to the original Question, will he give careful consideration to what is felt by many people, including myself,

who have had years of experience of this matter? He used the term "materially accelerated". That has been given much more limited scope by the statutory authorities than it was given under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. This is felt to be so by many who have had years of experience in this field.

Mr. Macpherson: I shall be glad to look into the point further.

Miss Herbison: I beg to give notice that, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies to these Questions, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — School Leavers, Buckhaven

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware there are 71 school-leavers in Buckhaven looking for work, and that many of them have been unemployed for long periods; and what consideration he has given to making alterations in the National Assistance regulations to enable unemployed persons under 16 to secure National Assistance benefit with a view to removing hardship.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I am aware of the situation which the hon. Member describes, although I understand that the latest figure of unemployed school-leavers in Buckhaven is rather less than 71. The minimum age for making independent applications for National Assistance was fixed at 16 by Section 7(5) of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and I have no proposals to amend it.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that the Buckhaven Town Council is thoroughly dissatisfied with the Government's refusal to help these young persons in distress at this particular time, and will he not reconsider his answer to meet the urgent need of young persons still seeking work?

Mr. Macpherson: Where there is definite evidence of need, assistance can be obtained in respect of the child, although it cannot be given to the child. Successive Governments have taken the view that National Assistance should not be paid to somebody under 16 as of right. I have seen the correspondence which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send me.

Oral Answers to Questions — Industrial Injuries

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in how many cases in each of the last three years claims for disablement benefit have been rejected on appeal on the ground that the worker suffered disablement as a result of injury by process and not by accident or disease; and what is his estimate of the annual cost of extending the industrial injuries scheme to cover injury by process.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The independent statutory authorities are required to decide whether claimants have suffered personal injury by industrial accident or, alternatively, whether they are suffering from a prescribed disease. Any statement which may happen to be made during proceedings on an individual case to the effect that claimants have suffered injury by process is therefore not germane, and the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. For this and other reasons it is not practicable to make the estimate asked for in the second part, but, as the hon. Member knows, cost is not the fundamental reason for excluding injuries by process.

Mr. Swingler: Surely this is a very important question, and an issue about which many trade unions are greatly dissatisfied. Will the Minister, therefore, cause inquiries to be made in order that we may know how many workers today are not receiving benefit for disablement because the statutory authorities have decided that the disablement has resulted from an industrial process and not from an accident? Would he establish how many workers are involved so that we may know the extent to which this deficiency in the industrial injuries scheme is causing hardship?

Mr. Macpherson: I am sorry if I appear to be precise in this matter, but one must be precise in the use of words. The statutory authorities do not decide that a worker has suffered injury as a result of process. They are not asked to decide that. They are asked to decide whether injury by accident has been suffered or a prescribed disease has been incurred, and not whether injury by process has resulted.

Mr. Swingler: The right hon. Gentleman will remember the recent case of

Mr. James Wilson, which I submitted to him, in which the Commissioner said that although the disablement was the result of his work he was disqualified from benefit because it was caused by industrial process and not industrial accident. How many such cases have there been in recent years, and what is the extent of the hardship which has been suffered by workers because of this judgment?

Mr. Macpherson: If the hon. Gentleman will study my reply, I think be will see the reason why it is not possible to give him the information he is asking for. I must emphasise that this was not a decision of the statutory authority; it was a remark made on the basis of what had been said in the course of the tribunal proceedings. In many cases where what is said is not germane on the matter it is not challenged because this is not the point which has to be decided. It is a different point, namely, whether the disability is caused by accident or by prescribed disease.

Mr. Swingler: In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — Widowed Mother's Allowance

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the estimated cost of continuing the widowed mother's allowance in respect of boys and girls awaiting university places.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No precise estimate can be made, but assuming that any concession could be restricted to widows and their children the eventual cost might go beyond £¼ million a year.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend how long the Cabinet will take to decide on this matter? Can he also inform me whether the Cabinet is guided by National Productivity Year or whether it is immune from it?

Mr. Macpherson: As my hon. Friend knows very well, the Cabinet is very much interested in Productivity Year, but this is a matter which has many implications and which cannot be quite as easily decided as my hon. Friend seems to think.

Oral Answers to Questions — Widow's Pension

Mr. Curran: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will seek powers to enable him to make the discretionary payment of a widow's pension to a woman who has lived with an insured contributor without being married to him.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. I do not think that such a provision could reasonably be added to the National Insurance Scheme.

Mr. Curran: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that when he is making rules that cover the lives of so many millions of men and women there ought to be some elasticity about them? Does he not think that it is very hard indeed that when a woman has lived with a man perhaps for forty years she should find at the end of this time that she has no claim at all on his funds? While I recognise that hard cases make bad law, does he not think that there is room for a little more humanity in the administration of his Ministry?

Mr. Macpherson: My hon. Friend will realise that although a woman has been living with a man for forty years he may still have a legal wife for whom he is providing in his contributions and that when he dies it may be the legal wife who may get the pension and not the woman with whom he has been living. This is a very difficult matter in which to apply discretion, and under the National Insurance Act there is no scope for discretion in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — Widowed Mothers (Earnings)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the estimated cost of abolishing the earnings rule in respect of widowed mothers.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Rather more than £1 million a year assuming that no other changes were involved.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that practically the whole of women's public opinion is in favour of the withdrawal of the earnings rule as applied to widows with children? Why is it that in a free country, on a basis of partnership, women's views are always

neglected? When will we get this alteration?

Mr. Macpherson: I assure my hon. Friend that neither her views nor those of other women are neglected in this matter. It would, however, be very doubtful whether the abolition of the earnings rule for widowed mothers could be restricted to widowed mothers.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister aware that on this matter the Labour Party and the women agree?

Mr. Macpherson: I am aware that on this matter the Labour Party do not seek to restrict the abolition of the earnings rule to widowed mothers. That is part of the difficulty.

Mrs. Emmet: Is there not a certain confusion in the Minister's mind in classing widows' pensions with retirement pensions? One thing that a widow cannot do is to retire. It seems to me that, in respect of earnings, this class of person should come under a totally different heading from the retirement pensioner.

Mr. Macpherson: The risk against which insurance is provided is the risk of the absence of earnings, and it has been accepted since the beginning of the scheme that if a widow is able to work, and does work, it is reasonable to take into account her earnings beyond a certain point.

Oral Answers to Questions — Unemployment Benefit (Seasonal Workers)

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will amend the National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Regulations, 1950, to enable persons to draw unemployment benefit during the whole of the off-season if no other work is available to them.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. Unemployment benefit is an insurance benefit payable for a limited period only, as compensation for loss of earnings; it could not properly be paid year after year for periods during which the claimant does not normally work and has no prospect of working.

Mr. Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I violently disagree with him? Will he please read what his predecessor


said in Committee on the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill on 30th November, 1961, when his predecessor used as one of his arguments the fact that at chat time it would be wrong to increase expenditure? When he has read this, will my right hon. Friend please refer the matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee?

Mr. Macpherson: In reply to the first part of the question, I am aware that my hon. Friend violently disagrees with me. With regard to the second part, I have read those proceedings and am aware that it was as a result of the steps then taken by my predecessor that credits were given during periods of unemployment. I am sure that we all appreciate that action. As to referring the matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, it was the N.I.A.C. which originally made this recommendation. The Committee has looked at the matter twice subsequently, and I see no object which would be gained by referring it again to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — Death Grant

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will estimate the additional number of death grants which would be payable in the year 1964 if the disqualification in the case of the death of women born before 5th July, 1888, were removed.

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, if he will estimate how much it would cost in 1964 to pay a death grant of £25 in the case of the death of men born before 5th July, 1883. and of women born before 5th July, 1888.

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will estimate the additional number of death grants which would be payable in the year 1964 if the disqualification in the case of the death of men born before 5th July, 1883, were removed.

Mr. N. Macpherson: About 50,000 additional grants would be paid for men and 120,000 for women at a cost of some £4¼ million.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that even his Government are not now trying to pretend that this is an insurance

scheme which is being operated on actuarial principles? Recognising that the scheme is operating on a year-by-year payment basis, will the Minister bring the old people under the same kind of protection as is given to the younger people?

Mr. Macpherson: While the National Insurance Scheme is not in all respects being run on an actuarial basis, it is, nevertheless, an insurance scheme and the fact remains that the people whom the hon. Member has in mind paid no contributions for this benefit and that the benefit was not provided for them under the legislation of 1946.

Mr. Small: Recognising that the number of people affected is diminishing each year, is not the time opportune to review the situation with a view to paying everybody? In the public mind, there appears to be differential treatment by the Ministry in the cases of death of old people.

Mr. Macpherson: Obviously, the people who are not covered will be a diminishing number, but the principles which I have explained still apply.

Mr. Ross: Surely the amount of money involved would not break the National Insurance Fund. Why does not the Minister anticipate the ending of this anomaly with the passing of the years by being a little generous now?

Mr. Macpherson: One reason is that many of these people had insurances of their own, often several insurances of their own, to cover this risk.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what principle, actuarial or otherwise, decided the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), I presume, to include these dates in the original Act?

Mr. Macpherson: The dates are included automatically because of the ages of the people concerned when the 1946 Act came into effect.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that many of these old people who have paid for private insurance throughout their lives do not have enough money at the time of their death to cover the cost of the funeral because of the reduced value of money? Is he aware that these


costs bear heavily on some families who can little afford to pay them? Since in many ways the insurance principle is not operated for many of the old people who are now getting the higher pension, surely it would be a good thing to extend the scheme to provide death benefit in the case of these old people.

Mr. Macpherson: I doubt whether that would be the right way to proceed. A case might be made for doing it in other ways. Surely, however, it would not seem right, fifteen years after the passing of the original Act, suddenly to include these old people in the insurance scheme for the purposes of death grant alone.

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will estimate the number of restricted death grants of £12 10s. which will be payable in the year 1964.

Mr. N. Macpherson: About 135,000.

Mr. Millan: In view of the small number involved, whatever may have been the reasons for making this restriction in 1948, is it not about time that we got rid of it now? These are all very old people, many of them in extremely indigent circumstances, and great hardship is caused to a surviving wife or husband. Could not the full amount be paid in these cases?

Mr. Macpherson: All I can do is to take note of what the hon. Member has said and consider it.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how much it would cost in the year 1964 to pay full death grant in the case of the death of men born between 5th July, 1883, and 5th July, 1893, and of women born between 5th July, 1888, and 5th July, 1898.

Mr. N. Macpherson: About Eli million.

Mr. Hannan: Since, in several occasions, the Government have increased the benefits in other branches of National Insurance to cover the increased cost of living, is it now to be said that the cost of dying is to be sacrosanct? Is not the Minister aware that these expenses also have increased and that anxiety is caused Ito surviving relatives? Will he now con-

cider the deprivation that the Government by their mistaken policies have caused in this matter and increase at least these restricted benefits?

Mr. Macpherson: These benefits have been increased on one occasion, in 1958.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

United States of America

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister without Portfolio what steps he intends to take to improve the publicity for development districts in foreign countries, and especially in the United States of America.

The Secretary for Technical Cooperation (Mr. Robert Carr): I have been asked to reply. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 20th May. he has sought advice from an advertising agency on this problem, and further action will be considered as soon as its full report is available.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say whether any Scots advice will be available to him when he makes decisions in this matter? With regard to publicity in America, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the publicity there is on a much more generous scale than it was until just a few months ago, because at that time it was threadbare?

Mr. Carr: I cannot answer specifically the question of Scots advice, although there are Scotsmen about wherever one goes to seek advice. I assure the hon. Member, however, that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of publicity in this direction, and certainly in the United States, although I hope that the hon. Member will not underestimate what has been done in that country since 1960.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Doctors (Pay)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if there was any over-distribution to general practitioners from the central pool last year; what effect this will have on the recent pay award; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Last year's central pool has not yet been settled. It will not affect the award.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not time that the whole question of the central pool was looked at as the basis for payment of general practitioners? Is it not a fact that during the period under review, a large number of polio jabs have been given by general practitioners for which, possibly, something like £1 million may need to be deducted from the central pool? Is it not anomalous that doctors should receive money from the local authorities, on the one hand and then have it deducted from the central pool on the other hand?

Mr. Powell: The question of remuneration has been considered as recently as in 1960 by a Royal Commission and again by the Review Body last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — General Medical Services

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in his Department with the preparation of a ten-year plan for the general medical services; when it will be published; and why this sector of the National Health Service has been left until last in his planning programme.

Mr. Powell: The future development of the general medical services is implicit in both the Hospital and the Health and Welfare Plans. I expect advice soon from my Standing Medical Advisory Committee on the future field of work of general practitioners.

Mr. Pavia: Should it not be explicit and not merely implicit? Has not the Ministry consistently said that the general practitioner/family doctor service is the key of the whole Health Service? Is not 90 per cent. of the work done by general practitioners whereas only 11 per cent. of the budget is spent on general practitioners? If these people are the leaders of the Health Service team, should not they have higher priority in the Minister's consideration?

Mr. Powell: They have the highest priority. If it will satisfy the hon. Member, the future development of these services is explicit as well as implicit in the two plans. If the hon. Member reads

them he will find that integration, both with the hospital service and with the health and welfare services, is repeatedly brought out.

Mr. Pavitt: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I have not read those documents? Can he say when the Annis Gillie Committee will report and whether he is waiting for that report before going forward with further plans?

Mr. Powell: I referred to that matter in my original Answer. Both the hospital plan and the health and welfare plan represent a great reinforcement of the resources at the disposal of general practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — Old People (Accommodation)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Health how many places are provided in old people's homes by the Kent County Council; and how many applicants are on the waiting list.

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he will make a statement regarding Aged People's Hostel accommodation in the northern region; how many applications for new hostels are still outstanding; and what are the prospects for the immediate future.
(2) how many aged people are still on the waiting list for admittance to Aged People's Homes in Durham County; and what are the prospects for the future.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): On present provision and future plans I would refer hon. Members to Command 1973; waiting lists are a matter for the local authorities.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Command 1973 shows that the ratio of places to the population is very much worse in Kent than throughout the nation as a whole? Is he aware that some of my constituents have been waiting for months and months to be taken into old people's homes? What steps is his Ministry taking to encourage local authorities to provide more places in old people's homes?

Mr. Braine: While it is perfectly proper for the Government to provide leadership and to offer help, there can be


no question of my right hon. Friend exercising close surveillance over the detailed administration of local authorities. If the provision is inadequate, the publication of the Command White Paper, with its ten-year plan, shows for the first time in all areas—in juxtaposition—what is happening; and this should be of the greatest help to local authorities in revising their plans for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — Vending Machines (Containers)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Health if, with a view to introducing legislation to make the use of glass containers for liquid compulsory for public vending machines, he will make a study of the comparative hygienic qualities of glass and paper containers as used in such machines, and consult the British glass industry regarding the supply of suitable glass containers.

Mr. Braine: No. Sir.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that milk, soups, mineral waters and so on are now being sold from vending machines and that some of the paper containers containing these liquids come out of the machines in a sticky mess, which makes them quite unhygienic, to say the least? Will he take this matter up with his right hon. Friend with a view to consulting the glass industry in view of the danger currently facing hundreds of thousands of young people and others who use these machines every day?

Mr. Braine: I am advised that liquids can be packaged hygienically in different types of containers treated paper, plastic, glass and so on. None of these has an intrinsic hygienic advantage over the others. In any case, no single instance has been reported to my Department by any local authority since the coming into force of the Food Hygiene Regulations regarding unhygienic containers in vending machines. The Ministry's officers are in the closest touch on packaging questions with the glass industry.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the hon. Gentleman have a look at the vending machines outside the Strangers' Cafeteria, where soups and so on are sold in unsealed paper containers which are subject to foreign bodies?

Mr. Braine: When I am detained in the House on late Adjournment debates. which is quite frequently, I have reason to use these machines. I cannot say that I have had any occasion to complain.

Sir K. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance to the effect that nothing his Department does will interfere with the process of selling these sixpenny drinks of milk and so on in public places by means of these machines?

Mr. Braine: I must emphasise that there is no evidence to show that these packages are unhygienic. However, we are always willing and ready to consider evidence to the contrary.

Oral Answers to Questions — Incontinence Pads

Dr. Dickson Mahon: asked the Minister of Health if he will ensure that incontinence pads are made freely available on form E.C.10 by their inclusion in the official list.

Mr. Braine: My right hon. Friend has this proposal under consideration.

Dr. Mabon: For how long is there to continue to be discrimination against patients who, by chance, have to live in England and Wales? We in Scotland have been sensible enough already to have these on the official list. Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary look at the official lists of both countries to see if it is time that discrimination of this peculiar kind should be removed?

Mr. Braine: I am willing to concede that there is great strength in the hon. Member's argument. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is now considering this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — Motor Vehicles (Personal Case)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health why he has refused to supply a two-seater vehicle to Mr. Bernard Hargreaves of Blackburn, who is so severely disabled with multiple sclerosis that he cannot walk, and who cannot accommodate either a passenger or his wheel-chair in his invalid tricycle.

Mr. Braine: These vehicles are supplied only to war pensioners.

Mrs. Castle: That is what I am complaining about. I am asking the hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider that


policy. Is he not aware that these civilian disabled people, who cannot walk a yard, have to transfer immediately from their invalid tricycles to wheel chairs at each end of their journeys? How does he expect such people to maintain normal employment unless they have a vehicle large enough to hold either a wheel chair or a passenger so that assistance is available at either end of their journeys? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that that is the way in which Mr. Hargreaves has been severely inconvenienced, so will he please alter the policy he has described?

Mr. Braine: I was concerned in answering the hon. Lady's Question, which refers to the specific case of Mr. Hargreaves, who is not a war pensioner. Mr. Hargreaves is an ex-Service man and he has, I understand, made representations quite recently to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. If those are successful—and this is something quite outside the sphere of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities—we will certainly look into the matter again to see what we can do to help.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is this not also, in a way, the business of the Ministry of Labour? Surely these problems should not be looked at only from the point of view of health or war disability considerations, but also from the labour aspect?

Mr. Braine: If my hon. Friend puts a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour he will, no doubt, get an Answer, but it is not a matter appropriate for me to answer.

Mrs. Castle: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that I have already tried to help this man to get a war pension? He has been turned down, and is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the whole point of my Question is that a person, whether he be a war pensioner or any other disabled person should, if he is to maintain his normal employment, have a two-seater vehicle? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the present policy and the way it affects the whole range of disabled people?

Mr. Braine: All credit is due to the hon. Lady for her efforts in the matter, but the point is that this man has appealed to his local war pensions com-

mittee. I understand that that body was dissatisfied with the reply it got. It is an influential organisation with a strong reputation and its views are very much taken into account.
As I say, Mr. Hargreaves has made fresh representations and, until the outcome of those is known, it is impossible for my Department to take a decision. The representations are made to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and not to the Ministry of Health.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not aware that there is widespread support on both sides of the House for an extension of this benefit to cover other than war pensioners? Does he not recall that this matter has been raised on many occasions in the last two or three years? Is it not time that he undertook to do something about it, bearing in mind the additional fact that to do so would not cost very much?

Mr. Braine: There may be something in that, but that is not the Question on the Order Paper. I am not called upon today to answer that point. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) is the spokesman for his party on these matters and has plenty of opportunities to raise the subject at the appropriate time, which is not here on a specific question referring to a specific case.

Oral Answers to Questions — Drugs

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the name of the drug which turns brunettes into blondes; for what reason it is prescribed; and if he is satisfied it has no other side-effects.

Mr. Powell: These are clinical matters and as such are not within my responsibility.

Sir B. Janner: In the light of the subject matter of the Question, that is not a very colourful reply. Would the Minister say what is the name of this wonder drug and what, in fact, are its side-effects? Is he really going to ignore what is a very important matter—the effect of drugs which people are sometimes compelled to take without their knowledge?

Mr. Powell: It would be quite improper for me to specify the name or


names of drugs which produce particular clinical affects or the reasons why drugs should be prescribed.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that to turn a brunette into a blonde is a clinical operation? I would have thought it was a cosmetic one.

Mr. Powell: I am asked the effect of a particular drug. It is not my business to indicate which drugs have what effects.

Oral Answers to Questions — Measles (Vaccine)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the large-scale production, which has started in Great Britain, of a measles vaccine.

Mr. Powell: I have just received an application for a licence to manufacture such a vaccine.

Sir B. Janner: As the Minister knows, there is an epidemic of measles, with over 200,000 cases this year. In the week ending 4th May, Leicester had 86 new cases, and there were 78 in the week ending 11th May. If this is an effective drug, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that it is made readily usable and available to people?

Mr. Powell: This is a matter on which I am guided by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The latest advice from that Committee is that it is not satisfied that measles vaccine should be recommended for general use at present.

Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister sufficiently interested to investigate the results of the use of this vaccine in the United States; and will he see from that that it is important we should use it here, if at all possible?

Mr. Powell: The latest information on these vaccines is taken into account by the expert committee which advises me.

Oral Answers to Questions — Confinement Costs

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Health what is his estimate of the respective cost to mothers of hospital confinement and confinement at home.

Mr. Braine: There need be no medical or nursing costs in either case.

Mrs. Butler: Since mothers are being increasingly compelled to have their babies at home because of shortage of maternity beds, and since this involves additional cost, such as domestic help and inflated household costs for the period, does the Parliamentary Secretary really think that the £6 home confinement grant is adequate in the circumstances? Will he have discussions with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance about an increase in the amount?

Mr. Braine: There are no medical costs, because the medical attention is free. There are no nursing costs, because those are met by the domiciliary service of the local authority. The non-medical costs will vary not only according to whether the woman is confined at home or in hospital, but according to her family and economic circumstances. The adequacy of the National Insurance maternity benefit is not a matter for my right hon. Friend but for the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Mrs. Butler: But is it not possible for the Minister to consider this question from a medical angle, because the cost of having a baby at home must affect the mother's medical condition? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that his Ministry should discuss the medical angle with the Ministry of Pensions to see whether some better arrangement can be made?

Mr. Braine: I will take note of what the hon. Lady says, but I do not think that we can pursue this matter any further today. Medical costs, of course, are already met. The Cranbrook Committee itself found great difficulty in estimating comparable costs, either to public funds or to the mothers, of hospital and home confinements.

Oral Answers to Questions — Contract Prices

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Health if he will in the future publish the contract prices for successful tenders to his Department.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir.

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the Minister think that if he were to publish the contract prices for certain articles in general use throughout all hospitals, it would


encourage potential suppliers to submit mare competitive tenders in future years, and thereby bring down his costs?

Mr. Powell: No, Sir. I think that the publication of the successful contract prices would have precisely the opposite effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — Water Supplies (Fluoridation)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the difficulties of people who for medical or other reasons may wish to remove flouride from their water supply, following its addition by water companies in support of his Department's fluoridation campaign; and if he will make arrangements to make fluoride-removing apparatus available to such people through the National Health Service.

Mr. Powell: No. Sir.

Mrs. Butler: Has the Minister seen the statement made by Professor Stieyne, of South Africa, that fluoride in the water supply is a possible cause of bone disease and goitre? Does he realise that people who may have a particular susceptibility to these troubles will not be able to avoid drinking fluoride if fluoridation becomes general in this country? If he is not prepared to make defluoridation apparatus available to these people, what steps does he propose to take to protect them?

Mr. Powell: Fluoride is already present in varying quantities in all water—at any rate, in this country—and in many areas it is present in much larger quantities than it would be as a result of artificial fluoridation. There is no difference whatsoever between artificially fluoridated and naturally fluoridated water.

Mrs. Butler: But does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that though many people are highly susceptible, for example, to large quantities of salt—people with high blood pressure, for instance—they are able to avoid it in their diets? The same may be true of certain people in regard to fluoride in the water supply, but they cannot escape taking it.

Mr. Powell: This Question is not about salt but about fluoride, but the fact is that no such result has been observed over the generations during which, in this

country, hundreds of thousands of people have been drinking water with a relatively high fluoride content.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Mental Health Act, 1929 (Admissions)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he will call for returns from hospital authorities which will distinguish between admissions under Section 25 and those under Section 29 of the Mental Health Act, 1929.

Mr. Powell: I have done so.

Mr. Robinson: I am very glad to hear this. Is the Minister aware that there are indications that the great majority of compulsory admissions under the Mental Health Act are under the Section 29 emergency procedure, for convenience, and not because they are emergencies; and that therefore the intentions of Parliament are being frustrated in this respect?

Mr. Powell: I have heard this alleged. although I must say that I have not been able to trace a specific instance which shows it; but I agree that it will be useful to have a breakdown of admissions under the two Sections.

Oral Answers to Questions — Central Sterile Supply

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what recent guidance he has given to hospital authorities regarding the use and procurement of sterile disposable articles and materials in the hospital service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: I am sending the hon. Member copies.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the development of disposables in hospitals, however desirable it may be in principle, is in danger of getting rather out of hand, with hospital authorities being swamped with free samples and advertising material from commercial firms? Does he not think that, in this case, careful guidance from his Ministry is proper?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. That is one of the reasons why I am circulating to hospital authorities a list of the various studies on disposables and the progress


reached in them, but this is a matter that all hospital authorities should take into account in their planning.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister's circulated list a large and complicated one? If so, would it be possible to prepare a précis of advice? So much material is coming in that if the Minister's advice is in a complicated form it might be difficult to assimilate.

Mr. Powell: I do not think that this particular list is complicated, but my Department issues many digests of progress in economy and improvement of technique.

Oral Answers to Questions — Nurses

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health how many hospital management committees have had to limit their recruitment of nurses because of shortage of funds during the last 12 months.

Mr. Powell: The staff recruitment, like the other expenditure, of all authorities is limited by their allocations.

Mr. Boyden: Why does not the Minister answer my Question? How many hospital management committees cannot recruit staff because of shortage of funds? If we know how many there are, we can form some assessment whether the funds are adequate.

Mr. Powell: The answer is that all authorities must recruit within, and not beyond, the financial allocations available to them.

Mr. P. Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there appears to be a conflict of evidence whether or not there is a shortage of nurses? The evidence appears to be of a shortage, particularly in the small hospitals? Will he comment on that?

Mr. Powell: There may be difficulties in small and particularly isolated hospitals that do not apply to larger and town hospitals. If my hon. Friend has a case in his constituency, I would be very glad to discuss it with him.

Mr. Boyden: Does the Minister say that hospital management committees try to recruit to an extent greater than their medical needs?

Mr. Powell: No, Sir. But the progress of the service in every respect is

limited, like that of every service, by the rate at which it can expand within the total economy. I am saying that this limitation applies throughout the whole of this, as of any other service.

Oral Answers to Questions — Rehabilitation

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health in how many general hospitals in England and Wales rehabilitation facilities are inadequate; and in how many cases the inadequacies are due to unsatisfactory buildings or to shortages of physiotherapists, remedial gymnasts and similar trained staff, or to both.

Mr. Braise: I am aware that there are hospitals where increase of staff or improvement of accommodation or both are desirable. but the hon. Member's Question does not admit of a precise answer.

Mr. Boyden: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some indication of the size of the problem and say whether it would be possible to take temporary measures to increase staff and, in other cases, whether he could use more staff by increasing the buildings?

Mr. Braine: There can be no exact criterion for adequate facilities. The level of services depends not only on building and staff resources but on their efficient direction. The matter is rather unsuitable for statistical presentation. The real answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is for the boards to assess the need for rehabilitation services, and to make their allocations accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Shipyard Workers, Burntisland and Kirkcaldy

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of shipyard workers registered as unemployed in Burntisland and Kirkcaldy, respectively, at the latest available date, and for the corresponding dates in 1961 and 1962; and what measures he is taking to offer alternative employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): At Burntisland, 116 in May, 1963, 14 in May, 1962, and 6 in May, 1961. At Kirkcaldy 48 in May. 1963.


10 in May, 1962 and 5 in May, 1961. Our local officers will continue their efforts to find alternative work for these men. The Government Training Centre we are setting up in Fife will provide local training facilities.

Mr. Gourlay: While appreciating that we are having a new training centre in Fife, may I ask the hon. Gentleman what steps the Minister is taking to provide employment for those trained in these centres? Is he aware that shipbuilding is the main industry in Burntisland and that 1,000 fewer people are employed in the shipyard today than were employed two years ago? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that so far no additional jobs have been provided in the area as a result of the Local Employment Act? Will he use the most strenuous efforts to provide such employment?

Mr. Whitelaw: I fully appreciate the difficulties caused to areas like this by the decline in the shipbuilding industry. The hon. Gentleman, however, should take some courage, not only from the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also in his own area from the advance factory at Donibristle. I understand that there is a prospective tenant for this factory and that it should employ a total of about 500 workers.

Oral Answers to Questions — North-East

Mr. Popplewell: asked the Minister of Labour how many workpeople have left the North-East in each of the three years ending April, 1963, respectively.

Mr. Whitelaw: These figures are calculated for mid-year only. In the years ending mid-1960, mid-1961 and mid-1962 the outward migration of insured employees from the Northern Region exceeded inward migration by 15,000, 14,000 and 10,000 respectively I regret that separate figures are not available for the North-East.

Mr. Popplewell: Do not these figures indicate how wrong the Government were in ending the operation of the Distribution of Industry Act and imposing the Local Employment Act? Will the hon. Gentleman bring all the pressure at his command to bear upon the Board of Trade and the Lord President of the Council

to do something more urgent to stop this migration away from the North-East?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not accept what the hon. Member has just said about the Local Employment Act and the Distribution of Industry Act. The hon. Member knows very well both the national and local measures taken in the North-East which are designed to put this position right.

Mr. Popplewell: asked the Minister of Labour how many workpeople were employed in the North-East at the end of April, giving male and female figures, separately, for each of the last three years.

Mr. Whitelaw: These figures are calculated for mid-year only. I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a table showing figures for the last three years.

Mr. Popplewell: But will not these figures once more reveal how the North-East is not receiving its fair percentage of employment? Will the hon. Gentleman again see what more the Government can do to get new industries into the North-East or, which is probably more important, to provide work for existing industries?

Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly note what the hon. Member says. Considerable measures have been taken. The activities of my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council are certainly yielding their results. As for opportunities of work for existing industries, I would mention the placing of Admiralty shipbuilding orders worth £10 million, which I believe is of advantage. The hon. Member knows many of the other measures as well as I do. In all, they add up to a pretty powerful contribution.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even though the North-East has been promised Admiralty and other contracts, the contracts now let there are in no way matching up to the promises given? Will he have another look at this?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am not aware that we are not matching up to promises given. If the hon. Member says that we are not, I will, of course, look at the matter.

Following is the information:


NORTH EAST ENGLAND EMPLOYEES IN EMPLOYMENT


Year ending
Males
Females


Mid-1960
788,100
347,900


Mid-1961
785,100
355,400


Mid-1962
775,600
357,700

Oral Answers to Questions — Older Persons, Llanelly

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now publish the result of the survey his Department has made into the incidence of unemployment amongst persons of 50 years of age and over in the area covered by the Lianelly Employment Exchange.

Mr. Whitelaw: The survey is not yet completed and my right hon. Friend thinks we should wait to see the results before deciding whether publication would be justified. He will, however, let the right hon. Gentleman have statistical information relating to older people in Llanelly as soon as it is available.

Mr. Griffiths: While awaiting the publication of the survey, may I ask whether the Ministry, through its regional and local officers, will do its best to persuade old employers and new employers in these areas that men of 50 have still much to contribute to them and to the nation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have discussed this matter before, and I appreciate and share his concern. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows of one instance in his constituency where this has been done and older workers have been taken on. The more widespread this practice becomes, the better.

Oral Answers to Questions — Ammanford and Garnant

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour what are the reasons for the serious decline in the number of insured workers in employment over the past five years in the areas covered by the employment exchanges at Amman-ford and Garnant.

Mr- Whitelaw: The main reason has been the decrease in coalmining employment in the Garnant area, but there have

also been smaller decreases in employment in the metal goods, brick and hosiery industries in the Ammanford area.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this decrease in the number of people in employment, apart from the fact that there is also a high rate of unemployment, casts a great burden on local authorities which have built up local services for a larger population? Will the hon. Gentleman also remember that if the young people have to go away it may come about one of these days that we shall not have the boys and men to enter the coalmining industry, with serious subsequent effect on that industry?

Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly accept the point which the right hon. Gentleman, with his unrivalled knowledge of the area, has made, and I will bear it in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN COUNTRIES (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent he lays down principles of discrimination in the export of armaments to foreign countries.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): All applications for the supply of arms abroad are examined by the Government Departments concerned in the light of the political, strategic and economic implications of each individual case. Subject to these factors, the general principles followed are that sales are authorised to recognised and stable Governments which are in normal diplomatic relations with Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not clear, therefore, from that Answer that the export of arms, unlike other exports, is not determined by the needs of employment but is a political act, and that to millions of people at home, in the Commonwealth, and abroad, it implies some approval of the international standing of the country involved? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is the reason why millions of people deplore Her Majesty's Government policy of exporting arms to a country which is practising apartheid?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. It is wrong to say that these matters are assessed solely from the political angle. As I said, they are examined in the light of the political, strategic and economic implications of each individual case.

Mr. Healey: But does the hon. Gentleman think it sensible and consonant with British interests that Her Majesty's Government, for example, should have sent military aircraft to Indonesia and have refused Malaysia, a Commonwealth country coming into being, the means to defend itself against possible use of those weapons? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is consonant with the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole that we should be the arsenal of apartheid in South Africa at the risk of breaking our relations with the African countries in the Commonwealth?

Mr. Thomas: As I said in a speech in a debate on the Address, the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the export of arms to South Africa is well known, and all these matters are taken into consideration when we are considering whether or not certain arms should go.

Mr. M. Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that the sale of arms to South Africa improves or injures our relations with all other African States?

Mr. Thomas: It depends on which arms are sold.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

National Insurance Contributions

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total income from the National Health part of the National Insurance contribution in England and Wales and Scotland. respectively, in each of the last 10 years.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: Could the Financial Secretary give the first and last figures. please?

Mr. Barber: Yes. The first figure for England and Wales is £36·3 million. The last figure is £145 milion. For Scotland the two comparable figures are f4·1 million and £16 million. Perhaps I should also mention that the contribution is expected to yield £161 million gross in 1962–63 towards the Health Service which is expected to cost £878 million excluding local authority expenditure.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much of this is used to relieve the Surtax payer?

Mr. Barber: I hardly think that is a relevant question.

Following is the reply:
The following table shows for the last 10 years the total income from the National Health element in National Insurance contributions up to September, 1957 and the yield of the National Health Service contribution then established up to the last financial year.


NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS


Financial Year
England and Wales*
Scotland



£m.
£m.


1953–54
36·3
4·1


1954–55
36·2
4·1


1955–56
36·3
4·1


1956–57
36·6
4·2


1957–58†
57·4
6·4


1958–59‡
93·0
10·3


1959–60
100·3
11·1


1960–61
103·6
11·5


1961–62§
132·1
14·7


1962–63 (Estimated)
145·0
16·0


Footnotes:


* Separate figures for England and for Wales are not available.


† Contribution rates increased from 2nd September, 1957.


‡ Contribution rates increased from 7th July, 1958.


§ Contribution rates increased from 3rd July, 1961.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Abbotsinch Airport

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation whether negotiations between his representatives and those of Glasgow Corporation on the new civil aerodrome at Abbotsinch have now been successfully concluded; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that some form of arrangement has been successfully concluded? Can the hon. Gentleman tell me when he expects that the terms of settlement governing that arrangement might be made available to the House?

Mr. Marten: I would not deny that negotiations have gone fairly satisfactorily so far, but there is, I think, a meeting of the Finance Committee of the Glasgow Corporation later this week, and another meeting later this month. I would not wish to say anything which would embarrass it.

Sir T. Moore: Could my hon. Friend say what proportion of the £3 million to £4 million Glasgow Corporation is willing to pay to make Abbotsinch Airport suitable for the heaviest aircraft now in use?

Mr. Marten: to answer that question would be to reveal the state of the negotiations which are at the moment sub judice.

Mr. Rankin: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether or not there is even a figment of truth in the question which has just been put to him?

Mr. Marten: There may or may not be a figment of truth, but I think that patience is the greatest virtue in this situation.

REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 11, and page 2, line 4, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Frederick Willey.—[Mr. Willey.]
Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 1. page 1, line 11, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. James Boyden."—[Mr. Boyden.]

and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO MAKE ORDERS AS TO REMUNERATION.)

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11. at the end to insert:
Provided that in any such order no basic scale shall be less than £650.
We deal by way of this Amendment with one of the crucial differences not only between the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education and the Burnham Committee, but between him and all people interested in education. There were three specific matters on which the right hon. Gentleman chose to challenge the Burnham Committee's award and this was one which apparently appeared fairly early in the deliberations of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he regarded a basic minimum salary for teachers of £650 as quite unacceptable.
All we are doing in this Amendment is to support the Burnham Committee, that a basic minimum salary for a teacher after three years' training should be not less than £650. We are being modest because we appreciate that the cost of living increased last year and has increased every month this year. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will have something to tell us about that,


because, obviously, it affects the approach that we should make towards these scales, but we can see successive increases in the cost of living continuing throughout this year. In those circumstances, to take the figure of £650 put forward by the Burnham Committee is being, to say the least, modest.
The National Union of Teachers said that it appreciated the support of those Members who agree with the Burnham Committee that £650 a year is not too generous for a three-year trained teacher starting his career. The Minister has proposed £630, and that means that the three-year trained teacher will be worse off than he would have been in 1945, so this will afford hon. Members opposite, who have given assurances to the National Union of Teachers and others, an opportunity of standing by such assurances.
The position is that they will either support us or oppose us. If they oppose us, they will be supporting the right hon. Gentleman, who persistently has said that £650 is too high a starting salary for teachers after three years' training, and who believes that in the present circumstances of desperate teacher shortage we should pay teachers, with the new requirement of three years' training, less in real terms than they would have received before 1945.
The right hon. Gentleman has followed persistently a wrong line throughout these negotiations, and I think that he has embarrassed his right hon. and hon. Friends. After all—and I have emphasised this before—he had a record at the Treasury. He was one of the Ministers who quite unprecedentedly rejected the recommendations of the University Grants Committee.
May I call in aid the Spectator, which is not biased in our favour. In calling attention to the fact that we have a Minister of Education who, not long ago, was one of the Treasury Ministers who took the unprecedented step of rejecting the U.G.C's. recommendations, it referred to two different circumstances since then: first, that the appointment of Chief Secretary to the Treasury seemed to be an unfortunate experiment, and, secondly,
…and more sadly, a forward-looking Minister at Education"—

that is, Lord Eccles—
who had clearly quarrelled with the Government over their decision and whose chief ability was to be able to win money from his department so that the number and variety of pupils staying at school until the sixth form had increased overwhelmingly, has been dismissed. In his place is a man who in the parliamentary debate on government aid showed that he had no concern about the treatment of the U.G.C. and seemed to regard favourably the Treasury's encroaching on its rights.
This is an issue of primary importance. I have noticed that the Conservative Party is making quite a lot of its achievements in education. I read the sponsored advertisements in the Press. I am aware, too, that for the first time after a very long period, in the Gallup poll the Opposition are regarded as more satisfactory in the field of education than the Government. [Laughter.] I am calling attention to the change that has taken place. I did not refer to Lord Eccles for any other reason. The issue is whether we are to continue the pace of advance in education. This is the crucial test, whether we get the teachers.
Here we have the right hon. Gentleman going out of his way to make an issue of this and saying repeatedly that he regards the salary of £650—I would have thought it a modest award—as outrageous. This is the first pretext for his interference with the award of the Burnham Committee—that is, a take-home salary of about £10 a week which the right hon. Gentleman regards as too much for a teacher who has satisfied the new requirement of three years' training in higher education.
As I have said before, the right hon. Gentleman gives the preposterous excuse in mitigation that the training colleges are choc-a-block with students and cannot accommodate many of those who would like to go into the training colleges. This is a condemnation of past policies of Her Majesty's Government, and a contemptible excuse. We all know that the status of the profession is very much affected by the starting basic salary.
To say that a teacher, after three years' training, is not entitled to a salary of £650 in present circumstances is catastrophically deplorable. It gives the lie to the Government's declared aims about education. To say today, when we face a desperate shortage, that the Government are not willing to pay a teacher


with three years' full-time training in actual terms what a teacher was receiving in 1944 shows that the Government are not honest in their intentions about expanding education in the coming years. This is the crucial issue.
The right hon. Gentleman quarrelled with me when I called in aid the Bow Group. Not for the first time, he misled the House about it. After the award in 1952, after dealing with the Government's education programme, the Bow Group said:
It seems incredible that there is not a similar policy for taking action on the financial position of teachers, particularly teachers in primary and secondary schools. This is a matter which is the crux of the whole future successful development of state education. Without a drastic reconsideration of this problem, the Government's educational spending simply does not make sense.
That was the case put by the Bow Group.
Approaching the question of teachers' salaries in this light, the Bow Group said that an immediate drastic overhaul of the basic scales was essential and that there should be an immediate increase of 20 per cent.
In winding up the Second Reading debate, the right hon. Gentleman said—he knew how misleading it was because he had been at the Treasury—that teachers were then on £520 and he would give them £620, suggesting that this was a 20 per cent. increase. He did not tell the House, as most of us knew, that, in fact owing to the increase in the cost of living the £520 now ought to be £582.
What we still want today, as we wanted ten years ago, is a drastic overhaul and a considerable increase of the basic scales, and this the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to offer. We must improve the status of the teaching profession and encourage teachers to play a real part in education. We must recognise present particular difficulties. We have to recognise, as the right hon. Gentleman must recognise, the difficulties of the quota, that we expect many teachers now, on their first appointments, to take up jobs away from home and live in lodgings. Most important, we want the right hon. Gentleman to appear genuine in his concern for education and genuine in his concern to have more teachers.
Yet the right hon. Gentleman goes out of his way to have this quarrel with the teachers. He began by suggesting that £620 was enough. Then he felt that £625 was enough. Now he thinks that £630 is enough. This is a niggardly way to approach our basic problem. It would be far better now to say that the Burnham Committee made a very modest proposal. In all the circumstances, it could hardly have been more modest. The thing for the Government to do now, to show that they have good intentions, is to say that they accept £650 as the basic starting salary for teachers as the least we can possibly do.

Mr. George Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has expressed the feelings of a great many of us on this side of the Committee. Many hon. Members opposite have been making sympathetic noises to the teachers recently when they have been interviewed privately, and I am glad that they will have an opportunity now to follow up those noises by voting for the Amendment which would at least fulfil the desire of the Burnham Committee that the starting salary for a qualified teacher should not be lower than £650.
The £650 is justified in view of the fact that earlier Burnham settlements have deliberately given greater emphasis to extra qualifications, to extra responsibility, to long service, and so on, and the teacher at the beginning has been held back. It is now felt by both the local authorities and the teachers that, in the interests of recruitment, the time has come when the minimum salary ought not to be a penny less than £650.
This is the view of people who have been negotiating teachers' salaries and dealing with the problem of recruitment ever since the war. The expertise of men like Sir Ronald Gould and Sir William Alexander in dealing with these matters is, as the Minister will at once concede, much greater than the Minister's. He has made his first foray into the deciding of teachers' salaries. He is an untrained negotiator and, without experience, he now tells us how much he believes that teachers should have as a starting salary.
3.45 p.m.
The other day, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the reason for putting


a figure lower than £650 is that, in a profession, the prize which is dangled oat at the end of one's career or, perhaps, in the course of one's career is more important than the salary at the start.

Mr. Peter Emery: Hear, hear.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may say "Hear, hear", but nobody, least of all the Minister, would pretend that teachers have professional rates of salary today. The £650 leads up to a maximum of just over £1,000, £1,200 or thereabouts. Does anyone believe that £630 or anything lower than £650 can be justified, since, for at least 25 per cent. of the profession, the chances of the prizes are never fulfilled? There are people who go from the first day to the last day of their teaching career without picking up any of the prizes.
This is not to say that they are incompetent or less good; the opportunity just does not present itself in certain schools. There are limiting factors which entail that some teachers have to be kept on the basic scale. Therefore, the argument that £650 is too high because of the salary offered at the end of one's career simply does not hold water. The Minister knows this himself.
Everyone knows that the Minister and, I may say, his successors, will face the problem of teacher recruitment at least for the next decade and probably for two decades. Every year, we have in recruitment 10,000 fewer teachers than we ought to have, and, unless we increase our recruitment by 10,000 a year—I think that the Minister will accept these figures of Sir Charles Morris—we shall, by 1970, still not be able to reduce the size of classes to 40 in the primary schools and 30 in the secondary school.
"Forward into the 'Seventies", indeed! It will be forward with large classes and forward with a crisis in education. If the figures are not altered, or if our Amendment is not accepted, the Minister will not be able to recruit to the teaching profession as he should.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Emery) can relax, because I have a lot to say yet.

Mr. Peter Emery: I think that my right hon. Friend will be honoured that we

want to take so much notice of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because it is so easy to refute.

Mr. Thomas: This is the first Parliament the hon. Gentleman has served in, is it not?

Mr. Emery: indicated assent.

Mr. Thomas: I thought it was. I will return to the subject before the Committee and present another argument to the Minister.
What is the starting salary in the public schools? How do they recruit their teachers? Is it by offering £650 a year? Is £650 a year thought to be too much for the teacher who starts at Eton, Harrow, Winchester, and wherever the Minister went? I think that he went to Eton. Were his schoolmasters paid £650 a year, as he expects our schoolmasters to be paid? It is high time that the Committee realised that an offensive attitude is taken to teachers in the State sector. The Minister is put on the spot by the Amendment. He is being asked to recognise that teachers will not be recruited unless they start on a salary which will afford them a fair standard of living.
I have another point about living standards. Every hon. Member who knows anything about education today knows that, due to the quota system, many young teachers have to leave their own localities and go away and live in lodgings. A great city like Birmingham is for ever trying to recruit teachers. It has an enormous Welsh colony there, as so many places seem to have. Young teachers living away from home have to meet the same living costs as people in other walks of life.
It is fantastic to say that a teacher, after three years in college, is to receive less than £10 a week in actual cash, on which he has to pay for his lodgings, live, and keep up his professional standards. That is asking the impossible. The Minister is really saying that young teachers must take other jobs as well, because they cannot be expected to live in lodgings, to buy food and clothes, to buy the books that teachers ought to be buying, and to do the travelling that teachers ought to be doing if they are to have the broad outlook which we want to attract to the classroom, on this miserable pittance.
This cannot be done on the Minister's proposals, and I believe that even £650 is far too low. It is only because the teachers were obliged after negotiation to agree to this figure that the National Union of Teachers, with reluctance, accepted £650 as the minimum salary. The union believes that it ought to be higher.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will take the opportunity today to indicate to the Minister, in the only way that really counts, that he has made a major blunder on this occasion. I know that it is not easy for them to walk into the Lobby and vote against the Minister, though I would like to see them do it. When the Labour Party was in power, on occasions I reluctantly, but under compulsion of conviction, found myself voting in a different Lobby from my colleagues. We are entitled to tell hon. Members opposite that on this occasion they have a right to abstain rather than to say that £650 is too much as a starting point for teachers in the State sector.
If the Committee registers its opinion that £650 is too much, I believe that it will serve notice to everybody in education that the crisis which today prevails, not only the crisis between the Minister and his partners—the local authorities and the teachers—but the whole crisis of recruitment and expansion in education, will become much more serious and last much longer than it ought. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts, though I must say that I am not exactly optimistic.

Mr. Peter Emery: This may be my first Parliament, but I hope that when I have been here as long as the hon. Member who wished to draw attention to this fact I shall marshal arguments against the Minister a little more convincingly than the hon. Gentleman has done.
We must all realise that recruitment into the teaching profession will be one of the major considerations over the next twenty years. I suggest that one of the things of the greatest importance is not merely what teachers can earn the moment they enter the profession, but what the potential salary is if they stay in the profession. What the hon. Member for Cardiff—Cardiff, North I think—

Mr. G. Thomas: Cardiff, West.

Mr. Emery: I apologise.

Mr. Thomas: It is the hon. Gentleman's first Parliament.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman did not know any of my constituency. At least, I knew half of his.
What the hon. Gentleman has completely forgotten is that we must continue to get an increasingly higher calibre of entry. It is the potential that these people can earn which will decide whether we get the best people into the profession.
I have, in the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West made friendly noises to the teachers in my constituency. I am delighted to be on the most friendly terms with them, as are most of my hon. Friends. One of the things which my hon. Friends and I believe is that the teachers themselves are concerned that the standard of recruitment shall be kept high. If only so much money can be used in this award, I believe—here, my views are diametrically opposed to those of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—that we should not decrease the differentials, which is exactly what the Amendment would do, but should carry on with the work done by previous Ministers in seeking to give a higher level of awards and posts which people can get by staying in the profession. This trend should be accentuated, not weakened.
A point which has not been mentioned so far, but which must be considered, is the wastage at the bottom level of the profession. In no other profession needing training lasting anything like as long as training for teaching is there as great a wastage at the bottom. We know that this frequently arises because there are such things as love and marriage. Many of the young lady teachers leave the profession to raise families. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) suggests that they get married before they raise families. That is obvious. I was not suggesting otherwise.
It is important that at this stage the Minister should take into consideration the number of people who return to the profession having been away from it for some years. They return when they


are aged 40 or 45 and when their children are away from home. Regard should be paid to the contribution these people make to the profession.
4.0 p.m.
Teachers in Reading are conscious that these people seem at times to be forgotten, and I hope that the Minister will find time to consider them and make them realise that he and many of us on this side of the Committee wish to encourage them to come back into teaching whenever they are available.
I do not think that there is any hon. Member on this side of the Committee who would not like to see the starting salary for teachers above the level of £650, but, whether we like it or not, when there is only this amount of money to be used in the award under the Bill, it is imperative that we leave it to the Minister to ensure that the differential is not decreased, and it is specifically in relation to that point that I believe we should support the Minister and reject the Amendment.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman under the impression that there is a fixed amount of money that can be spent on teachers' salaries?

Mr. Emery: We could, I suppose, take the whole gross national product for teachers' salaries, but that is impractical. We all realise that, and I would have expected an old stager like the hon. Gentleman to have done better than to ask that question.

Mr. James Boyden: I hope that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) will forgive me if I come back to his arguments later.
I want to address myself, first, to the Minister's attitude, both in introducing the Bill and throughout the Committee stage, to the relationship of these scales to other professional scales. The right hon. Gentleman has been at pains, particularly of late, to discount the idea that the man in Whitehall knows best. I notice in the curriculum studies that he is making he has recently taken steps to show that he is not the dictator he is alleged to be, but in all these arguments about scales and the way in which they should be worked out he has never produced any scientific evidence to show why the career structure which he favours is more likely to recruit teachers than

the scales recommended by the Burnham Committee. If the Minister is to have science on his side, he ought to do better than make assertions.
Many of us have accepted the general line of differential development over the years, and I shall not weary the Committee by going over those arguments, but in all these developments the evolution has been purely ad hoc. There has been no attempt to substantiate scientifically what the right hon. Gentleman is apparently aiming at. It therefore ill becomes him to say that the man in Whitehall knows best, because it is obvious that the teachers and the L.E.As. who do the employing and who are at the "grass roots" might know best.
We know that until recently the Minister's statistical data has been poor, and that only now is he moving forward to a position where he can get some element of science about it. The right hon. Gentleman has never been able to produce any convincing arguments on that side, so we must automatically feel, at this stage anyway, that if the N.U.T., the I.A.A.M., the L.E.As., and the teacher organisations think that £650 is the right figure, the right hon. Gentleman has to do some hard work to convince us of the opposite.
I think that the basis of this is an indiscreet remark which one of the right hon. Gentleman's officials made at a meeting not long ago, when he talked about the wastage of women teachers as Passchendaele economics. What the Minister is really trying to do is to conserve money at the expense of education by retreating from the position where young women teachers marry and go out of the profession for a time. If the Minister is arguing scientifically, he ought to produce arguments and data by which he can suggest how to get more married women teachers back.
The Minister is satisfied with the present state of teacher recruiting. Every year—and this has happened over the last four or five years—2,000 perfectly good potential teachers cannot get in and are wasted. I say that the figure is considerably higher than that, because of the remaining 3,000 or so who match up to some sort of qualification, probably the majority of them, after being admitted


to a training college, would make satisfactory teachers, and if there was a real drive in the schools to recruit teachers the figure would be even higher.
What the Minister is really doing is putting up a smoke-screen to cover his ministerial deficiencies. Because he cannot absorb these teachers, or will not take steps to absorb them, he is saying that the salary scale of £630 is adequate, but there is no evidence for this. If the teacher places were there in the training colleges, and if the scale were at least £650, he would probably do very much better than produce the arguments that he has done about career structures.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in private, or, at least, in interviews with their constituents, seem to oppose this line of argument adopted by the Minister just as much as we do. The Teacher, of 3rd May, reports a number of interviews with anonymous hon. Gentlemen opposite. It reports:
A representative of another Minister 'said that he and most Members regretted the action, but believed when a decision has been taken, it must be kept'.
I did not know that there was a Colonel Blimp in the House, but possibly there is one among hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The report goes on to say that this hon. Member
Agreed that Boyle scales did not, in fact, help career prospects greatly. Agreed that if the Minister was directly represented in the future negotiating body, he should forgo right of veto.
I hope that that hon. Gentleman will join us in the Lobby tonight.

Sir Kenneth Thompson: I am sure that if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) names the hon. Member concerned we shall do our best to get him into the Lobby.

Mr. Boyden: I am not in a position to name him. I am merely quoting from this reputable newspaper, which gives the opinions of some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Another Member described the Minister's action as
ham-handed and inept. Deplores the disquiet and unrest the Minister's action has caused in the profession—puts the blame for this squarely on the Minister".

Sir K. Thompson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let us have the name of this hon. Member?

Mr. Boyden: I cannot do that. I am merely referring to The Teacher. I could continue to do so, but the hon. Gentleman is getting upset and I do not want to upset him too much. No doubt we shall recognise some of the hon. Members who have expressed these opinions in the Lobby tonight.
If the right hon. Gentleman is really concerned about the recruiting problem, he should take note of the Fulton Report and grasp that nettle. The suggestion made in that Report is that one way to make up for the flood of women teachers leaving the profession is to take more active steps to recruit men training college students. This, obviously, has great significance from the point of view of the lower figure in the scale. The Fulton Committee, which is the Minister's Advisory Committee on the Supply of Teachers, said that this was a thorny matter and referred it back to the Minister.
The Committee's argument as to why it did not make a strong recommendation about increasing the proportion of men teachers is that it might be prejudicial to the educational opportunities for women. What a stage we are getting to when it is necessary to use an argument like that against one of the obvious ways of increasing recruitment to the teaching profession. If men are to be recruited to the teaching profession in greater numbers, obviously this argument about a scale of £650 is relevant.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is in touch with the scientists on this matter, nor with the schools. I have here a document from the Oxford University Education Committee. It is called "Technology and the Sixth Form Boy" and it reports the results of a survey in the schools to discover what motivates grammar school boys to go into the various professions. It was particularly concerned with recruitment to the technologies. But one small paragraph, one of the conclusions, is shattering from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude about the salary conditions and the fancy career structures which he is building up.
Here, I deal with the hon. Member for Reading. One sentence reads:
The overall picture gained from the boys' answers to the questionnaire and from discussions with them was that the ultimate salary they may expect to receive had little bearing on their choice of career.
This is not a propaganda document prepared by us, but a scientific investigation into what influences sixth form boys in taking up careers. The document goes into the matter much more scientifically, but I have no time to develop that.

Mr. Emery: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would move towards the end of the document where ultimate salaries are shown in groups. It is shown that where there is a wide grouping this does not influence the matter, but towards the end of the document the hon. Gentleman will see some differentiation where there is a major alteration in salary.

Mr. Boyden: Let us deal with Table 19, which groups occupations according to pay, prestige and intelligence. Under "Pay" the first six occupations chosen were doctor, solicitor, dentist, accountant, architect and nuclear physicist. The teacher did not appear in that list. The only places where the schoolmaster figures are under "Prestige" at No. 5 and under "Intelligence" also at No. 5. Solicitors and doctors are deemed to be more intelligent than schoolmasters. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) that solicitors have more intelligence than schoolmasters, according to the boys.
Seriously, while I do not lay great stress on this argument I say that if the right hon. Gentleman is building a career structure of his own devising, which he is doing, he ought to produce many more arguments than those which we heard when he introduced the Bill and in Committee. Unless he now suddenly produces arguments which we have not previously heard, we are bound to say that the people who are in contact with the "grass roots"—the teachers' organisations and the local education authorities—and have much more contact with and experience of teachers coming into the schools, and particularly teachers in their initial years, have much more right to be heard than he has.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Irving: I support the Amendment because it intro-

duces, and would make mandatory on the Minister, the scale freely negotiated between the teachers and their employers, a procedure which should be their right and was the practice until the Minister intervened.
The Minister's intervention has been one of the most damaging and disruptive events in the education service for a long time. It has been damaging because it destroyed confidence and upset the traditional partnership on which we prided ourselves for so long. It has been disruptive because it has stirred up anger and discontent in both the teaching profession and the administrative service in such a way as I believe will be harmful to recruitment in future and to the orderly development and progress of the education service.
I support it also because I do not believe it to be fair to regard £13 per week gross pay as too much for the young entrant into the teaching pro,. fession. We require these young people after a vigorous course of study, which lasts six years beyond the statutory age, to enter at a point on the scale which will leave them, as one of my hon. Friends said, worse off than they would have been in 1945. Nor do I believe, with the Minister, that, because we have the difficult problem of young married women leaving the profession after only a year or two in the service, this justifies penalising all young teachers. In any case, we believe in the long-established principle that we should pay the rate for the job.
Therefore, I believe that the Minister's interpretation of his duties in imposing a scale of less than £650 and his reliance on Section 89 of the Act has been out of keeping with the spirit of those who prepared and presented the Education Act to this House in 1944. I believe that it is a complete betrayal of the words uttered in this House by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) while that Measure was passing through the House.
Some of us were shocked when, in Committee, the Minister repudiated the principles which were supposed to be behind the Tory Industrial Charter in refusing to acknowledge a right on the part of teachers to free negotiation which the Tory Party was prepared to grant to all others earning wages or salaries.
We feel that this distinction is a mere piece of sophistry. It is, however, clear that the Minister is prepared to go ahead and, by order, impose the scale with less than £650 at the lower end. His purpose was, indeed, to improve the career prospects of teachers, and he criticised the Burnham recommendation because it did not pay enough attention to high qualifications, responsibility, and so on. But it is clear that in imposing this scale he has not achieved his own intention, and there will be many graduates who will be much worse off on the Minister's scale than they would have been if the Burnham recommendation had been accepted by him.
The Minister has criticised the Burnham Committee. But Sir William Alexander has said that between 1948 and 1961 salary differentials and career opportunities have been extended and strengthened more than for any other comparable group of salary earners, and he added that if the Burnham Committee had lived it was pledged to carry this process a stage further in 1965.
The scale, in my view, is most unfair and the intervention is unjustified, and I therefore hope that the Amendment will be carried to give us an opportunity to rectify the position and, indeed, to make a new start.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) said that in looking at a career the determining factor was the remuneration that one would ultimately receive at the top end of the scale. I do not know whether he was a member of the Committee—I cannot remember him speaking on it—or whether he has studied the scales which the Minister proposes and compared them with those which the Burnham Committee had previously submitted. If he had done so, he would have found that the rewards at the top end are identical.
This has relevance to what the Minister said about cutting down the remuneration at the beginning of the scale because a teacher did not reach the limit of his commitments until, say, ten years after he qualified. Therefore, in his consideration of the basic scale the Minister was cutting off something at the beginning and adding something half way through when the teachers would reach

the maximum of their commitments—a period of between ten and fourteen years.
I have been reflecting that if I had been a teacher I should now have been qualified for thirteen years and, therefore, would in two years' time be reaching the point where my remuneration on both the Minister's scale and the Burnham scale would be identical. My children happen to be age 9, 7 and 3 years, and I do not consider that I have by any means reached the maximum limit of my commitments. Therefore, the Minister's scale does not do what he set out to do.
Another factor which is of particular importance is that one should not think in terms of limiting the award to £21 million altogether. Therefore, I am happy to see the scale improved at the beginning, and I should also be happy to see it improved at the end if the Minister so decided.
The primary reason why I am saying this is the connection, which no one, I think, has drawn attention to so far, between the importance we place on education and its effect on economic growth. We heard a lot from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, on the subject of growth, of expansion without inflation. I wonder whether the Minister of Education has seen the excellent document produced by the National Economic Development Council, Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth, which says:
Economic growth is dependent upon a high and advancing level of education.…
It also says that
such evidence as there is strongly suggests that increased investment in education may make a substantial contribution to growth through the benefits, both social and economic, that it provides.
Therefore, I think that, on consideration, hon. Gentlemen opposite, including, perhaps, the hon. Member for Reading, will agree that we need to spend this very small additional amount which would be necessary to raise the starting point of the teachers' salary scale to £650.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I support this Amendment. I do not think that anybody could have the nerve to suggest that this figure as a starting salary for teachers is adequate to attract people into the profession. When the right hon. Gentleman was previously


the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education we introduced the three-year training period for teachers, and I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying that what we want is quality, not quantity. Since he has been Minister more and more have we been forced to the position that we want both quality and quantity if we are to give the right opportunity to the children in this generation.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman looked at the television programme "Gallery" on Thursday night. It dealt with schooling in Glasgow, where children do half-time and teachers are doing double shifts in order that those children should have some education. On Friday, I was in a school in Stoke-on-Trent, where there was not a single class in the junior school with under 45 children in it, and where one woman teacher on the staff was having to do the whole of the needlework in the junior school. How are we to attract teachers into the profession if this is the kind of opportunity we give to them?
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) said that what we ought to look at was not the beginning salary, but the possible opportunities for promotion. That is all nonsense.

Mr. G. Thomas: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Slater: Of course it is, because the possible opportunities for promotion are very small for the very large numbers in the teaching profession. The opportunities for key positions in the educational field are not as numerous as the hon. Member for Reading would have led us to believe when he was speaking just now.
Take the question of married women teachers. Are teachers—all teachers—to be condemned to start at under £650 because girls get married and leave the profession for a number of years? There are many girls who do not get married and remain in the teaching profession—thank goodness, not as many as there used to be in the teaching profession. I do not know whether we have got more attractive in the profession, or what it is. Nevertheless, there are a large number of girls who remain single, and there is a large number of men whom we want to attract to the teaching profession.
If I were to begin my career again I should look twice at whether I would go into the teaching profession, if I were looking at it merely from a salary point of view. I know that there are many people who go into it who are dedicated, and who are attracted to that kind of job, but we do not have to condemn them to an inadequate salary because they may be dedicated or attracted to the profession.
The right hon. Gentleman has always told us, when we have discussed the shortage of teachers, that we want to attract married women back. We shall not attract married women back unless we pay them, at the beginning, a salary to attract them into the profession to start with. Many married women who are teachers go out of the profession into other jobs—in social service with local authorities—and get very much better salaries than they can by coming back into the teaching profession. They may have commitments because of their families, and they want an adequate standard of living for them, and they may look twice at whether they should go back to the teaching profession or whether they should take up another profession or occupation.
The teachers to whom I have spoken and who have sent me letters—and I am sure that other hon. Members have had such letters, too—are not just the very young teachers, but include older teachers, teachers holding some of the possible promotions we have heard about, teachers who are head teachers, deputy head teachers, heads of departments in schools. They have written to me to say that, while they know that they would be a little better off under the Minister's proposals, they are concerned with the younger members of their staffs.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not need to be as stubborn as some other right hon. Gentlemen in the Government are on other matters. I feel really sorry for him because of the way he has looked when he has been tackled on television, when he has looked really uncomfortable, and has looked as though—I do not say he did—he wanted only to escape the situation in which he has been. He may be laughing, but the fact remains that he has lost much of the good will which the teachers felt when he became Minister of Education.
I support this Amendment because I think it is unjust to expect young teachers, after three years' training, to accept so little. It is not just the three years' training, but all the previous training, all the time they spent at grammar school or junior high school, wherever it was they went to get the necessary qualifications to go in for training. It is all that period which they have spent preparing themselves. It is absolutely unjust to expect to attract people into the teaching profession at such a low starting salary as the one which the Minister suggests.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to regain some of the good will that he has lost, and to give back to some of the young people who have come into the teaching profession some of the confidence which they have absolutely discarded because of his own approach, he must have a last-minute conversion, to have a lost-minute chance to get back what he has lost. Unless be does, we must support the Amendment.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: However controversial I may want to be later I feel that I shall carry both sides of the Committee with me in assuring the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) that the standard of charm of the lady members of the teaching profession is rising rapidly, and that she is, indeed, the living embodiment of that which is doing such damage to our recruitment figures.
There are two things which I want to say quite briefly. If I may, I will take friendly issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) on one point only. He does not represent quite all Reading, so he must not take a proprietary interest in it, for I am proud to have a small part of it in my constituency as well.
Be that as it may, I think that my hon. Friend was absolutely right, and I take issue firmly and definitely with hon. Members opposite, that in this as in any other profession it is the opportunities towards the end of it rather than merely the starting salary which matter the more. It is, in fact, a profession, if I recall rightly, where approximately 40 per cent. of its members have opportunity for earning other than the basic scale.
This, I think, is healthy and good, and I cannot see why it need divide the two sides of the Committee in the least to recognise that the standard of those at the top of it—of any profession—must always be of paramount importance to any body which we are seeking to construct. That does not mean that we should ignore the basic scale and concentrate exclusively on additional rewards for longer service, training, responsibility, or the rest of it. But it still remains a fundamental belief of mine that these matters are of great importance.
4.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) said that he supported the Amendment because it would restore the position to what it would have been on the settlement negotiated by the two sides of the Burnham Committee. That is not so. What it would do would be to restore the position on the narrow point of the basic starting salary. That leads me to ask a question of whichever hon. Member opposite speaks next. Granted that the Amendment is accepted, the additional money that is required can come from one of two sources. First, it can come from an adjustment of the remaining scales. This would put the whole scale back to the position proposed by the Burnham Committee. Secondly, it can come from an additional sum of money being made available overall. Which course would hon. Members opposite adopt?
At a time when the nation is bearing substantial additional financial burdens, the second course would place an intolerable burden upon the ratepayers. It would mean that every local authority which has budgeted for the overall Burnham figure, however distributed, would have to accept an additional financial burden, which would mean the levying of extra money by way of some kind of supplementary rate. That is the difficulty that we would have to face.
I understand why the Amendment has been put forward. The Opposition are in a comfortable position. I am not suggesting that in the purely hypothetical possibility of my finding myself on that side of the House I could not conceivably take part in such an exercise. But, to be realistic about it, the plain difficulty facing hon. Members opposite is that they will


have to state clearly and categorically how they propose to raise the additional finance. They will either have to do it by returning to the Burnham scale or by placing an additional rate burden on the ratepayers. It would be helpful to the Committee if hon. Members opposite would spell out their intentions. Incidentally, the ratepayers would also like to know whether this would mean an additional subvention from the rates.

Mr. Lubbock: Has the hon. Member thought of a third alternative, namely, that the Minister could pay a higher proportion of the teachers' salaries?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, if we were prepared to reconstruct the entire mechanism merely for one little sector. The hon. Member is never likely to have the responsibility of government. His position is even easier than that of members of the Labour Party. At least, they visualise the possibility of forming the next Government. The hon. Member has nothing to worry about at all.

Sir Stephen McAdden: In spite of the preconceived notions of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), it should be pointed out that the Minister has no money. He must get it from someone.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Indeed—but I would think that such small details escape the attention of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
No hen. Member regards the figure of £630 or £650 as sacrosanct for a starting salary for this great profession. In fact, hon. Members on both sides are anxious to move forward constantly to improve the salary awards and the general status and position of the profession. What we are arguing about is the method to be employed. For the reasons that I have given I believe that my right hon. Friend's proposals should stand, and that the Amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. Harold Davies: The speech of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) took me back to my third form days, and to the times when I was in the headmaster's study. The hon. Member was talking down to the House of Commons. In parenthesis, he suggested that we must be realistic. I am

sick to death of the crackpot realism of the idiotic ideological individual.
Let us consider how crackpot the hon. Member's suggestion is. First, he asks the pompous question, "Where will the money come from?" That is the sort of argument that we heard in the four-ale bars forty years ago, or among the Welsh miners forty years ago, before we converted them to Socialism. Where will the money come from? It will come from a Government who wasted £140 million on Blue Streak and more money on projects arising from their militaristic outlook than all the Governments added together for the last thirty years.
When the hon. Member asked that question it was noticeable how he pushed out his chest, and how his shoulders went back. He wiped out the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) completely, and he then appealed to the Labour Party to be responsible. What about the Minister of Education, who has interfered with thirty years' work and negotiation? Did he show responsibility to our educational system? Today, our system is one of the worst among the advanced countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite can squawk "Nonsense", but they should study some of the reports of the educational opportunities available in some of the other advanced European countries, and compare them with ours.
The two most explosive things in our educational system today are the Government's policy in respect of the primary schools and their attitude in respect of the 11-plus examination. This has a lot to do with the salary question. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite who laugh show their complete lack of knowledge of the problem. How do we expect to get children through the 11-plus examination with classes numbering from 45 to 50, where a proper educational opportunity cannot be provided?
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) may have appeared on television, but I am sorry for what he has been telling millions of people. It is all very well for the hon. Member to interrupt—

Sir S. McAdden: I did not say a word.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member did not have to say a word. The idiocy of


his grin spoke volumes. To fail to realise the relationship between a moderately decent salary and the question of the 11-plus examination shows a complete lack of knowledge of our educational system.
If Britain is to keep her place in the world she must provide a better educational opportunity for our primary school children. That can be done only if we can attract 10,000 new teachers every year. We want to attract young men and women into the profession. We do not want to return to the sickly period of the hungry 1930s, when Governments and certain individuals had such a warped view of the situation that whenever a beautiful young teacher married she was immediately given the sack. Instead of keeping the best material in our schools, the Government pushed young married women teachers—who, of course, were likely to become mothers—out of the profession despite all their years of training at college or university.
Today, we are doing the same thing to men teachers, in another way. It was hinted at today. We heard it in that pompous speech by the hon. Member for Wokingham. This attitude is that they can get more than the basic salary by taking other opportunities. Some of us who took university extension classes on top of ordinary teaching jobs have had experience of that sort of thing. A teacher is already overwhelmed by the burden of teaching oversize classes. This sort of situation is a disgrace to a country which tries to claim that it is one of the leaders of education in the world.
A very pointed question is involved here, and the public should hear about it. What are the salaries of young teachers beginning in public schools compared with those starting out in our primary schools in the State system of education? I do not want to bother with the public schools at the moment. There are much more important matters. Let us get the State system right and get better primary and secondary schools.
If we want increased productivity, then whichever Government are in power, the population will be asked to move about. New towns are growing up. In Leek, I have areas containing little

village schools built originally for 20 or 30 children. Suddenly, however, a new housing estate for miners is built half a mile away from one and now the little school has to be extended with huts. It has overcrowded classes. If we want to be able to move people and industry about the country, we also need a decent "float" of young people qualified to go into the teaching profession in order to cope with these problems on top of the increased population.
Do we regard £650 a year as a decent starting salary? I could earn more by becoming a bookie's runner. Indeed, bookies' runners do far better than Members of Parliament. This is the topsy turvy, "bingo" society that the Government and Members opposite have introduced.

Mr. Peter Emery: How does one make a book?

Mr. Davies: I can teach the hon. Gentleman some time.
As we all know, the basic salary for a teacher is a stinking salary for the 1960s. Yet it will go on into the 1970s, no matter what the hon. Member for Wokingham says. Our children are the basic material for our future nuclear physicists, doctors, lawyers, scientists and technologists. Unless that material is moulded by a properly paid, dignified teaching profession, then the material will simply not be available for the professions and the sciences.
Out of God's infinite flies of boys, it is teachers who make men".
Let us give the teachers dignity and a decent salary to begin with.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: During nearly fourteen years in the House of Commons I have listened to a fair amount of old rubbish, but I admit that I have never listened to such utter bilge as the speech of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). I wonder whether he knows anything about education. I wonder whether, apart from his bookmaking activities, he has ever been a member of an education committee, or knows anything about our education system.
To talk about my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) being pompous, when all my hon. Friend asked was where the


money was to come from, exemplifies all that Socialism stands for in this day and age. It is the attitude, "Let us have anything we like—to hell with the cost. So long as you can say that this is a public service then, by waving a magic wand, the cost can be borne by somebody else." That is way hon. Members opposite think. [Interruption.] If the very garrulous and voluble and, I hope, temporary Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) wishes to interrupt, why does he not stand up like a man, when I shall be pleased to give way?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: Why does not the hon. Gentleman use precisely the same argument about the enormous defence expenditure which has increased every year?

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman knows very little about government. Governments of any party always have one very great difficulty, and that is to apportion priorities for the national expenditure and taxation. It is not an easy job. There are always hon. Members on both sides riding particular hobby horses, wanting more money to be spent on them. But it so happens that the majority of the Committee—although the Liberal Party is quite prepared to abrogate all sense of responsibility—feel that some proportion of our national productivity must go to the defence of the nation, and are quite prepared to stand up to the cost.

Mr. A. Bourne-Arton: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the great majority of citizens, if they had to choose between being defended or educated, would prefer to be defended?

Mr. Cooper: It is not far from that. Unless the nation was safe and secure, education as we know it would not carry on.

Mr. Peter Emery: That is the point.

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Member for Leek talked about the poor state of education. I remind him of one fact which is incontrovertible. It is that we spend more per head of the population on education than does any other country in the world except Sweden. I do not doubt that the results we obtain from our education system are much greater

than those obtained in any other country. We have nothing to be ashamed of in the development of the brains of this country.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: If it is true that only one, Sweden, spends more per head of the population on education, can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that in the United States 39 per cent. of the age group between 18 and 21 go to universities and colleges?

Mr. Cooper: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman might have read the Sunday Express yesterday. He would have seen on the front page that the Labour Party is contemplating changes in the public school system.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what the Sunday Express said was rubbish?

Mr. Cooper: May we take it from that intervention that the Labour Party has positively no intention of altering the structure of public schools?

The Chairman: It seems to me that the Committee is straying from the Amendment.

Mr. Cooper: That is quite possible, Sir William.
The supporters of the Amendment have got themselves thoroughly confused about the whole substance of the Amendment and of the Bill. We are discussing four things—the basic scale, the policy of differentials, the power of the Ministry and the constitution of Burnham. Although we may be considering only the first two of those in the context of the Amendment, those four things are the substance of our debate.
Nobody would attempt to argue that the sum proposed by the Minister is princely—that would be common ground between the two sides of the Committee and throughout the country—but in this whole story the Minister of Education has been guilty of only one mistake. It will be within the memory of hon. Members that some time ago we had the controversy about the sum of £47 million as opposed to £42½ million. The then Minister of Education, Sir David Eccles, now Lord Eccles, said quite clearly that it was his intention to introduce legislation to impose his wishes upon the


profession and at the same time to reconstitute Burnham.
It is my firm belief that had we followed through at that time, had Burnham been reconstituted as it should have been, the problem which now faces us would not have arisen. The fact remains that the Burnham Committee capitulated at that time and the Government's proposals were accepted, so the Ministry did not follow through and we now find ourselves with this problem.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but we are discussing quite a small Amendment which does not bring in the basic Second Reading matters which the hon. Member is now introducing into his speech.

Mr. Cooper: There used to be a radio broadcaster, Professor Joad, who prefaced all his answers by saying, "What do you mean by—?" and in this case it would be, "What do you mean by small?" In this case, one is entitled to ask what you mean by small, Sir William.

The Chairman: What I mean by "small" is "narrow".

Mr. Cooper: Thank you.
I will support my right hon. Friend in his proposals because they represent an increase in the basic scale, although I do not regard the increase as adequate. I hope that when a reconstituted Burnham Committee next considers this problem, it can do so more fundamentally, but, at the same time, I wholeheartedly support my right hon. Friend in his policy of differentials.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I do not propose to go into great detail on some of the points which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, because it would be a trifle unfair to saddle him with all the obscurantist arguments which we have heard from hon. Members opposite. I want to speak briefly on a matter which exercises many people at all levels in the profession, as the Minister well knows.
The attempts to create an image of the Minister as the only one who is really concerned with those at the more senior end of the scale do not stand examination. It is very unfair to give the impression that members of the profession who

oppose him in this matter are the least concerned with rewards for and recognition of experience and additional responsibility in the profession. If any serious discussion of this disagreement is to be honourably conducted, it must start from that recognition.
There is here a conflict of judgment. I would not object if the Minister said that in a matter of judgment he took a view different from that of the vast majority of the profession, or even from the constituted committee playing a leading part in the negotiations. But what we must never do is to make it appear as if reason is exclusively on the side 'of the Minister, who alone is concerned about the prospects of members of the profession when they reach more senior positions of responsibility, while those on the other side of the argument ignore them. There is no such distinction. This is an artificial propagandist creation by those who wish to support what the Minister has decided to do.
Not only was there a clear judgment by the Burnham Committee, with its very responsible membership, but also by the major trade union organisation representing the teaching profession. The judgment was that at this juncture of educational development it was right and just and sensible to give additional encouragement to people at the younger end of the scale and especially to new entrants to the profession.
This is the problem to which the Minister has to address himself. One of these days the Minister himself, or whoever succeeds him, will have to readdress himself to this problem, and it does not help to put up bogies, which have nothing to do with the problem, merely by saying, "Are you going to capture some of the votes of ratepayers by frightening them into the belief that the country will be committed to a huge increase in the rate bill because you take a different view of this matter?"
The Burnham Committee includes people who are local councillors and aldermen and who have been members of local authorities. They were concerned with rates long before the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) first came into politics, and do not need elementary lessons in the financial implications of the debate on this Amendment.
I have always been puzzled why the Minister so stubbornly decided on this course. I am not in the least concerned with making his personal position more uncomfortable, for this argument will continue. It does not concern only one Minister of Education. It would be a waste of time merely to make him feel uncomfortable about his personal position. However, when he disagreed with the judgment of the Burnham Committee, why was it not possible for him to do everything possible which was suggested to him privately and publicly to search for a compromise with both the Committee and representatives of the teaching profession? In my judgment, that should not have been impossible without interfering with the long-term policy which the Minister may have had in mind, but my judgment is not important. I am trying to find out why the Minister behaved so stubbornly when he rejected the Committee's judgment and took a different view.
Why was it completely impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider the alternative proposal from members of tile profession who took a leading part in the negotiations and go back to the Treasury to consider whether it would not be possible, if not to find the whole sum, at least the additional sum required to reach a compromise agreement?
5.0 p.m.
After all, "compromise" is not an unknown term in wage negotiations. There are many parallels in the discussions between representatives of the Civil Service unions and the Treasury, as the employing side, where similar disagreements have arisen and agreement has been found by the adoption of a middle course. It is inexplicable that the Minister should decide to dig in his heels so stubbornly and exclude from his mind any idea of a further search for a compromise agreement.
This has given rise to all sorts of worries, doubts and suspicions among members of the teaching profession. The right hon. Gentleman himself must know what are these worries, as any hon. Member must know who has received a deputation representing the teachers and had long and detailed discussions on the subject. It is not good enough for hon. Members opposite to end their speeches by saying that the sum to which the

Minister is sticking is not a princely sum. That is paying lip-service to the discussions which they have had with people representing the teachers. In doing so they underestimate the intelligence and the public and political acumen of the representatives of the teachers.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee—as hon. Members opposite must have been—were deeply impressed by the detailed knowledge of the proceedings and the discussions which have taken place in this dispute which was displayed by the representatives of the teachers. They have a clear appreciation of how this disagreement arose. The Minister knows that he must make a case which has not yet been made if he wishes his arguments to stand up to the critical examination of members of the teaching profession.
If it is asked why it was so completely impossible for the Minister to continue to search for another solution the question also arises whether the right hon. Gentleman—although he finds difficulty in agreeing to it at present—may not have in mind that the Committee and the representatives of the profession may be right. At this time, we need something to encourage entrants into the profession. There is the serious problem of recruiting sufficient people to do the new research needed in the most advanced field of natural sciences.
Should not the constitute a warning to the Minister that in the sphere of education there exists a dangerous malaise? Does not the Minister agree with those who are worried about this malaise and feel that it is unhealthy for the future of the country from an educational, an economic and also from a defence point of view? It is bad and unhealthy, and potential teachers feel discouraged because they consider that they would belong to a somewhat neglected profession.
It does not do any good to point out that we do not occupy such a bad place in comparison with other countries. I should never consider as useful any argument which attempted to do less than justice to the great deal of important educational work which is going on in the country. But in the nineteenth century we led all others in educational and scientific advance. It was temporarily overtaken by one or two other countries,


but the lead was regained. Now we are in danger of slipping back and again being overtaken by other countries.
The Minister must counteract this malaise in the profession. He is responsible just as others at other levels are responsible for counteracting it in the universities. It is not good enough to say that money is not everything and, because they belong to an honourable profession, to expect that teachers should not be looking to their prospects if, after three years at college, they permit themselves to work at a very low starting salary.
Recently, I visited one of the most advanced teacher training colleges in the London area, where considerable expansion is going on, as the Minister will be aware. The surroundings there will create the university atmosphere that many of us have wished to bring to teacher training colleges, and it will prove an excellent base for the training of future teachers. But is not it incongruous that after creating the atmosphere of an honourable profession, at considerable expense and making everyone feel—whether they come from a technical college, university or a teacher training college—that they are in a major enterprise to ensure the future position of what is a major industrial nation, at the same time to engage in a conflict with the teaching profession over an additional expenditure which could have been brought within the scope of these negotiations, had the Minister decided to be stubborn with the Cabinet and not with the teachers?
The Minister is primarily responsible, as he will be aware, for standing up against his colleagues in the Cabinet on occasions and defending the interests of education. The gravamen of our charge against him is not that he exercised his judgment and came to a different conclusion from that of the Burnham Committee and the teaching profession, but that there is no evidence that he tried to reach agreement with members of the profession, or that he undertook their fight in those conflicts for more money which must take place within the Cabinet.
The right hon. Gentleman has failed to produce evidence of having done that, so anyone who believes in the case which the teachers and the Burnham

Committee have put forward must support the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I strongly support the Amendment providing that in the enforced settlement of the Minister no salary should be less than £650 a year. I find it extremely difficult to contemplate that we can have a serious difference between the two sides of the Committee about the obvious merits of this Amendment. I should have thought it commended itself to every hon. Member. I have not heard one convincing argument in opposition to it from hon. Members opposite, and the fact is that there cannot, in any sense of a reasonable conception of values, be a valid argument against this extremely modest minimum scale for teachers which was the scale that the authorities who were negotiating the settlement recognised, and which is based on experience. It must commend itself to every hon. Member.
No doubt every hon. Member, from time to time, makes speeches about the importance of education and the part it has to play in the future of the country. I am prepared to believe that most right hon. and hon. Members honestly believe that to be the fact. We often say that the education service—we call it a service—is second only—and possibly even this may be doubtful—to the practice of medicine. Yet, faced with this practical test, can we honestly say that in this age of affluence, of which we are often reminded by hon. Members opposite—no doubt the country will be reminded of it more frequently as the General Election draws nearer—we cannot afford the £2 million or £3 million extra which would be required to implement the proposal in this Amendment? I understand that a figure of that kind is involved. I do not believe that this nation cannot afford that amount of money now. I doubt whether any hon. Gentleman opposite really believes that we cannot afford, for this very deserving section of the community, the small addition which would ensure that their minimum starting salary would be a little less absurd than it is now.
We have only to compare the sum suggested in the Amendment with what we know is the remuneration of large numbers of people at a comparable age


in industry and commerce—who very often have no qualifications at all—to see that they are getting far in excess of the modest minimum which we have suggested. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) asked what is the starting salary for assistant masters in public schools. A current advertisement shows that for the first post in a fairly well-known public school the salary offered is £850 per annum with a supplement for boarding, so that the salary is worth far more than the £850 quoted somewhere below a £1,000.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that that figure is in advance of the Burnham scale for a good honours graduate with, perhaps, four years' training who starts now?

Mr. Skeffington: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will develop my argument in my own way so as to arrive at the conclusion I want to put forward rather than be sidetracked by his intervention. The relevance of the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman, I do not altogether appreciate.
The fact is that in one type of educational establishment the figure currently offered is far in advance of both what was offered by Burnham and what is suggested in this Amendment. That proves that the figure in our Amendment is an extremely moderate and modest one. It is because hon. Members opposite always seem to wish to perpetuate the difference in treatment between certain types of establishments that we have our doubts about how far they want to have an educational establishment which has comparable qualities and gives comparable terms and conditions to those serving in it.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: All I was trying to say was that there was no difference.

Mr. Skeffington: I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's observation, and I think it would be better to continue with my argument. He has been in the Chamber for some time and perhaps he will catch the eye of the Chair later, when he can make his own observations. I was sorry to see that no hon. Members opposite stood up to argue the merits of this Amendment. It is better for the

hon. Gentleman to do this in his own speech than to interrupt me when I am making mine.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Emery) supported the Minister's scale on the ground that what really interested people were the prospects, that the starting salary was far less important than the prospects that a good salary scale would offer if the amount of money were divided in the way suggested and by giving some at a later stage. I think that there is something in that argument, but I believe that the much more significant feature in the matter of recruitment for teachers today is that many young people want to settle down at a very much earlier age than they used to do 20 or 30 years ago. People today are marrying very much earlier.
I know that in my own second adopted profession at the Bar many members of it who would have waited five or ten years at it before making a reasonable living cannot do so today. For most of us, the matter of private means has gone and, consequently, after a year or two, unless they are particularly lucky, they tend to drift away from the profession and take a job either in the Services or in industry. This is also true of many of those attracted to teaching and who would like to teach. If we make the initial starting salary too low, and which the Burnham negotiators wisely thought too low, we shall not get the recruits in the first place. I think that this is far more important than the fact used in the argument of the hon. Member for Reading or by the Minister himself.
There must not only be reasonable prospects but there must be a reasonable starting salary. I will give the Committee one practical example which is known to me. It concerns a young teacher who started just about a year ago and who had a very fine record in mathematics. I have at times drawn the attention of the House to the crisis in the shortage of teachers in mathematics. This young teacher was offered an excellent job in industry. After he had been in his first school for about a year he was approached by one of the electronics firms which had heard about his record and asked if he would consider an invitation to join its staff. He had an interview with the firm during which the person interviewing him said, "We


would like to have you, we should like you to join our staff. We are short of specialists. What salary would you want."
5.15 p.m.
The salary which he suggested modestly was double what he was then receiving. The firm said, "We could not expect you to make this transfer for such a small increase in salary with all the attendant upheaval involved", and it offered him a salary three and a half times as much as he was getting as a teacher. I am glad that this young man decided after thinking over the offer that his vocation was in teaching and that he is going to remain a teacher. But there are many others who would not feel that they could neglect taking an opportunity of that kind. We do not think that they should be put in that position in the first place.
I hope that more and more hon. Members will realise that there is a real practical purpose in inserting this minimum figure in the Amendment. While this debate has been going on I have refreshed my memory by looking at Appendix D in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Remuneration of Doctors and Dentists. Of course, this Commission reported in 1960 and the figures in Appendix D concerning remuneration in other professions were gathered in the year or two before that, so that they are now out of date.
If one looks through the remuneration of members of comparable professions of two, three or sometimes four years' training, it appears that in 1960, compared with our present proposed minimum scale of £650 the only professional groups worse off were curates and barristers. Perhaps one ought not to classify curates as being members of a profession. I believe that when a member of the cloth asked the late Ernest Bevin if he could join his union he was told that he had better join in the pilots section—he was put in that separate category.
The only other profession worse off in 1960 were barristers. In 1959 an assistant principal in the Civil Service received a commencing salary of £655 a year; a veterinary officer in 1959 received a starting salary of £824 a year and a chartered surveyor had a starting salary of at least £650 a year, and sometimes a

little more. Solicitors certainly received £100 or £150 a year more. This was true of chartered accountants and of practically all the members of the three engineering institutions, and so on.
Consequently, if we are really going to treat education and those in it, the teachers, as really being of worth to the nation we ought to improve upon this very miserable scale laid down by the Minister. I believe that this Amendment highlights two things. First, it shows the considerable unwisdom of the Minister in having put himself in the position of having to have these details discussed on the Floor of the House where, as often happens, other considerations are introduced apart from the pure merits of the case. Secondly, it is a very good test, whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, of the Government's intentions about education.
If hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby to vote against this Amendment the teachers will really know what they think of them.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I confess that I was tempted to get to my feet by the observations of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), to whom I always listen with pleasure and who soared into such oratorical passages that I thought the parachute of his oration might not enable him to descend, said that the speech of the hon. Member for Wokingham was pompous.
Hon. Members opposite appear to be saying to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, "Why do not you poor chaps apply your minds to the economics of the situation; where the money is to come from? Why do not you realise that the local authorities may find difficulty in raising the money?". They may have a hostile attitude to the question.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) suggested that one is not allowed to speak on this matter unless one has been a member of a local education committee and studied it all. I do not often establish my own alibi, but I first became a member of an education committee of a county council 30 years ago. It was a Conservative county council and most of its members were farmers.


Our principal problem was that we could not pay more than 28s. a week to workers on the highways in case the agricultural labourers protested.
I was glad, Sir Robert, that you called my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) before you called me, because I was greatly impressed by what he said. If I may venture a criticism, I should say I was impressed by the moderation of his remarks. He spoke about junior chartered surveyors, solicitors and so on. I could not get a qualified solicitor today for less than £1,000 a year to start with, unless he had a rather obvious detriment which disqualified him from the job. [Laughter.] I am prefectly serious. There are men of high mental ability and great gifts who are not able to fulfil the sort of post one has in mind if one is appointing someone to a company practice, to undertake minor advocacy and so on.
In London today it is quite impossible to get a shorthand-typist for less than £15 a week. I am not talking about a qualified secretary; I am talking about a girl who can do moderate shorthand and moderate typing. Fifteen pounds a week—yet we are talking about £12 10s. for a qualified teacher. Two and a half years ago I found myself a member of a Royal Commission appointed to consider such things as judges' rules. In the end, as so often happens to Royal Commissions, as a result of a rather absent-minded gesture by the then Home Secretary, we were told to consider police pay. a question for which we had no experience, no knowledge, no figures and no standards to apply, and the question of judges' rules was taken off us.
We said in the Report that a policeman is sui generis, there is no standard of basic comparison which one can make, but there are some tests one can try. I believe the police force is of first importance. We all thought it of first importance that we should get good men, but the actual education insisted upon is very slight. One can start at 18. I hope the police will not think me ungenerous when I say that the main qualification is that one has to be over 5 ft. 7½ ins. Why that is I do not know; Napoleon was not that height and Nelson was not.
We had to apply our minds to a number of things. It was said of the police that they can retire on a full pension. Some

of them can retire at 45 with a full pension, and that is a great advantage. Mankind does not think five years ahead. Goodness knows, it would be a miserable life if we tried to do so. It is no use saying to a lad of 21, "You will have an easy time when you are 45." That does not interest him. He looks at the Government and thinks he will probably be blown to bits before then. He looks across the road and realises what the Minister of Transport is doing. The consideration for him is how much he will get when he starts on the job.
We had a wonderful argument from many points of view. All the local authorities called our attention to the rates. We were not left under any misapprehension as to the general views of the Association of Municipal Corporations on the question of spending any money out of the rates on anything—except, of course, on the subscription to the Association of Municipal Corporations. We were left under no misapprehension about that. We had to make a recommendation and, as no doubt the hon. Member for Wokingham will recall, this was during a period of economic crisis. We were shortly to have a pay pause and all sorts of committees had to consider why people wanted more money and to try to stop them getting it.
We are now told by Conservative advertisements circulated every day that everything in the garden is lovely and that we are in a period of expansion—indeed "planned" expansion, a word they have never used before. I hope that it will not sound discourteous. Sir Robert, because I have not the slightest desire to be discourteous, but, having listened with rapt attention to fourteen of fifteen speeches on this Amendment, I have begun to wonder whether we are discussing a different Amendment from the one on the Notice Paper. It may be as well to consider what the Amendment says. It is an admirable Amendment which I support, but it is very modest. It does not suggest a minimum of £650 and that then the salary should go rapidly ascending, but merely that those who would start at less than £12 a week shall have it supplemented to £12 10s. and so on until they qualify for the full salary as they do now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington suggested that this might


cost £2 million or £3 million. I should be surprised if it would cost so much. In any event, that sum could be got from the interest on the money which was to be spent on Blue Streak. The bon. Member for Wokingham, in his "non-pompous" speech, invited us to ask a number of questions the answers to which would be completely out of order. He wanted to know how we would raise the money from some other sources. If I said that I should knock off half the expenditure on foreign embassies or reduce the money spent on defence, or adumbrate my view about MI5, I am certain that you, Sir Robert, would stop me—

The Deputy Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): The hon. Member is getting it all in.

Mr. Hale: I can well understand that you would find it your reluctant duty to ask me to come back to the Amendment, which has been referred to from time to time in the course of this long discussion. When we were discussing the question of police this further argument was put forward. It was said that we should prepare a scale so that the man concerned would get his maximum benefit at the time he most needed it. Working it out, it seems that if a man gets married at 22, he starts to breed. After seven or eight years his children are of a certain age at which they eat more, but when a chap wants the money is when he comes from the training college and wishes to marry the wench who has been waiting three years. Then he has to furnish a house and, Heaven help him under a Tory Government, to pay a fantastic rent to provide a miserable rabbit hutch. On £12 10s. a week he has to start life and face all the difficulties of hire purchase and providing a home in which to bring up a family which will be taught to look up to papa as a member of a learned profession. The plain fact is that to the hon. Member for Wokingham, the hon. Member for Ilford, South and their colleagues teaching is non-U.
No one said "What about the rates?" when we recommended that the police salaries should start at £650 a year and go up to £1,000 a year. The police have a whole series of opportunities for promotion not comparable with that of the teacher. Not only have they more

chances of promotion, but a much earlier age of retirement. No one said "What about the rate?" when we considered the doctors.

Mr. Bence: Or the judges.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hale: What are we asking for now —it is quite right that we should make it clear—by this Amendment? I am not saying that we do not reserve the right to criticise other things, but the question now is whether, taking the Minister's scale as it is, we should shove in a minimum of £12 10s. a week. What was the equivalent of that in pre-war terms—£4 a week? I once lived on very little more myself. That is what we are asking for.
I ask the Minister to tell us why he cannot accept the Amendment, precisely what it would cost the community if he accepted it, and whether he does not realise that for young people the starting salary is the most vital of all considerations in recruitment. Is he really going to consider whether, by the refusal of this Amendment, he will not reduce the opportunity of recruiting worthwhile members of this extremely important profession, and do harm to the cause of education generally?

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am rather surprised that the Minister does not seem prepared to give way on this Amendment because there are so many instances in our country today where the starting salary, or the starting income, in industry, commerce or the professions is probably the most important factor in determining whether a boy or girl enters a trade or profession.
I have spent most of my life in the engineering industry, and one of the great factors, particularly between the wars and since the last war, in frustrating the entry of boys into good apprenticeship schemes was that they saw around them in industry men with no specific training at all, or semi-skilled or unskilled, earning wages at 22 years of age higher than the wages they would get as skilled men, when they came out of their time.
As a trade union representative in the factories I have negotiated the wages of skilled men coming out of their time at 21 or 22 years of age, and the management have said, time and time again, that


they would be only too pleased, and they thought that it would be justifiable, to give a much higher starting wage on completion of training, but, unfortunately, if they did that they would have to give it to everybody. I have known cases where boys have taken a good Higher School Certificate and qualified to go to university, but they have been given the opportunity to go into modern industry as executive trainees at £850 a year. I know of a boy of about 19 who won an exhibition to Cambridge who was offered the position and accepted it, of an executive trainee at £850 a year. That is more than a teacher starts at after three years' training.
I was shocked by the interjection of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton). I have been in the House of Commons 13 years and I never thought that in the second half of the twentieth century I should hear even the most diehard Tory say in the House of Commons that there were people in this country who would prefer to be defended, that is they would prefer to have a nation of soldiers, airmen and sailors, than to have a nation that was educated.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misquote me. What I suggested to my hon. Friend tie Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) was that most people in this country if they had to make the choice of being defended or being educated would make the voluntary choice of being defended.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is getting very far from whether the basic scale should be £650.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Member has repeated the statement he made. The hon. Member should think before he speaks. If we did not have an educated people in this country we should not be able to defend ourselves because of the modern techniques employed, so in fact the hon. Member's interjection was just stupid, utter nonsense. I do not know what sort of majority he has in his constituency or what his prospects are, but if I were in his constituency he would never get my vote after making such a stupid statement in a debate on this very important subject.
Coming back to the Amendment, I want to make this final point. I have never

been in the teaching profession, but I think that it is good for some of us to come into these debates who are not in the profession but who can speak as fathers and parents and see objectively the society in which we live. I consider that today the most difficult task being performed by any section of the community is that of teaching children in our primary and secondary schools. The competition for opening a child's mind and developing it intellectually is terrific, and the task of the teacher is becoming almost insuperable, especially with classes of 40 or 50 children. When I hear of the size of some of the classes which teachers have to handle, I wonder that we do so well as we do in our schools.
A boy or girl after completing training in a secondary school or grammar school and three years at training college at 21 years of age has a starting salary of £620 —£12 a week—and has to wait 16 years before reaching the maximum salary. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if in the apprenticeship system for the training of engineers and technicians in industry a boy, on completion of training, could only reach the wages of a skilled craftsman after 16 years, the apprenticeship system would collapse, because boys would not do it.
The teacher is presumably trained after three years, just as is an engineer or a technician, and he will have to wait sixteen years before he reaches what is considered the maximum remuneration that is from £620 to £1,250 which are figures presumably looked upon as fair remuneration for a good teacher.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we really are not discussing the scale that a teacher will get after sixteen years. We are discussing here the basic scale at which he starts, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to that.

Mr. Bence: The point that I am making is that the amount on entry into the teaching profession should be raised from £620 at the minimum so that the differential between the starting stage and the full salary is narrowed. I think that sixteen years to wait is far too long. The sixteen years' wait is too long. I cannot see anyone trained in industry waiting sixteen years to get his maximum salary.

Mr. R. P. Hornby: Surely, the hon. Member is speaking directly contrary to the Amendment which he claims to support. If he is worried about the sixteen years' wait, he should ask for the maximum salary to be paid much earlier.

Mr. Bence: No. From the beginning I have stressed that the salary at the point of entry is most important to young people entering a profession. Obviously, during the course of sixteen years all kinds of things can happen. Increases can be brought about. The hon. Member will know, as we all do, that the immediate consideration is the salary at entry. All kinds of progress can be made afterwards. In this case, it takes sixteen years to do it unless one becomes a headmaster.
I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment for a basic starting salary of not less than £650. That would give him latitude to increase the figure. I am convinced that this will not increase the entry of young men and women into teaching. Unless we get an increase in the entry of young men and women into our State schools, our educational system in general in the next decade will decline relative to that of many other nations unless we do something urgently about it.
Those of us who spend our lives in industry know how much people in industry, commerce and trade depend upon a democracy which is well-educated—that is to say, far better educated than some of us were forty years ago—because if we do not have that, we shall not succeed in achieving the prosperous Britain that we all want.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): I support the Amendment for two reasons. First, it would remove one of the most glaring injustices from the scale of salaries which the Minister is imposing upon the teachers, and secondly, it would, perhaps, to a small extent, undo some of the damage that the Minister has done to the partnership in English education. This partnership between the teachers, local authorities and the Ministry has been one of the glories of English education. Probably one of the biggest issues of all is that the Minister has done tremendous damage to that partnership. Our pro-

posal would not remove the damage that the Minister has done, but it would go a little way towards mitigating the harm.
It is difficult to find out why the Minister has done what he has done, but, on looking through all his speeches on Second Reading and in Committee, he seems to have given three reasons. The first is that he wanted teaching to become a profession in fact as well as in theory. In professional status, there are a number of elements. Remuneration is certainly one of them. Surely, the Minister would agree that the community has not gone anywhere near to facing up to paying our teachers a professional salary yet. If the Minister is anxious to do this, one wonders why he has not taken steps to create some of the elements to establish a teaching profession—home rule for the teaching profession, for example, a graduate profession, and so on. There are many other things that he could do in this direction.
The second reason given by the Minister for the step he has taken was that it was necessary to increase the differentials and to pay more at the top end to the older teacher in order to get recruits of the right calibre. I do not know whether the Minister intends this to be a reflection on the calibre of the people who are coming into the profession. I should think not. It should, however, be put on record that most of us feel that we have an excellent teaching force, a first-rate body of people who do a magnificent job in old schools and overcrowded classes under the most difficult conditions. I hope that the Minister intends no reflection on the calibre of the people who are in the profession and those who are entering it.
If the argument is being used that it is necessary to pay people more later in life to ensure getting the right kind of recruit, in the present context of society it is an equally valid argument to say that we must give a decent starting salary to attract people to the profession. This is true for two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said, so many competing rewards are offered in all kinds of other spheres that it is essential to give a decent starting salary to get the right number of able young people into teaching.
5.45 p.m.
Secondly, people are marrying much younger. Only a fortnight ago, I picked up on the A.1 a young man who was hitch-hiking. He told me that he was a student from a training college in the Midlands and was going home for the weekend to Northumberland. I asked whether he had a job and he said "Yes". He said that the first week after he got out of college he was getting married. That is a general thing nowadays. What sort of life will that young man have? How will he be satisfied with £12 a week? The Minister should take this kind of thing into account.
If it is argued that it is necessary to pay people more later in life to get the right kind of recruits, let us look at the changes that the Minister has made to the differentials. They are only marginal. The Minister is a fair-minded man for whom, politics apart, I have always had a great admiration. Does he really suggest that a difference of a few £s here and there will make the difference in attracting more people into teaching?
Thirdly, the Minister has emphasised over and over again that he has intervened in this disastrous way on educational grounds. Can he really argue that so to depress the standard of living of young teachers as to create in them a gnawing preoccupation with making ends meet is in the interests of children or of education?
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said that he had lived on £4 a week. I started teaching in 1933 and I came in in the middle of a 10 per cent. cut. My monthly salary was £12 16s. 6d., from which was deducted £2 10s, a month, which I had to repay for a grant which I received—in those days it was a loan and not a grant—which left me with the princely amount of £10 6s. 6d. a calendar month on which to live. Translated into 1963 terms, young people today are not getting very much more than that thirty years later.
Why the Minister did what he has done is still a mystery. I have always tried to be objective about it, but I cannot understand why he has intervened in this way. There are a number of possible explanations, but none of the three which he has given is a real possibility. He certainly cannot justify keeping new entrants on the verge of penury, which is what it amounts to.
It has been said earlier in this debate that the teaching profession underpins all the other professions, trades and occupations. What happens in the teaching profession and the state of its morale has repercussions throughout the whole economy. To create a dissatisfied, unhappy profession would do no service to Britain. I do not think that any hon. Member opposite will doubt that we have an extremely unhappy, dissatisfied teaching profession. I appeal to hon. Members opposite who believe this to support the Amendment, because it would go some little way towards removing that unhappiness and dissatisfaction.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I support the Amendment. The Government have taken such drastic action over the recent Burnham award that the teaching profession in general is concerned about the sort of prestige the Minister of Education considers is worthy of the teachers.
Considering the basic starting figure of £630 a year, it is no wonder that the profession is worried about the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to those who make up its ranks. After a teacher has spent years training for the profession—from the age of 5 through to a training college or university—can anyone blame him for feeling that he is not being offered a worth-while salary? Any hon. Member who suggests that a teacher is receiving an adequate salary when entering the profession on the basic rate cannot understand the elementary financial rudiments of life.
Although the Minister is to blame—and he must bear the brunt for every criticism that is made of his recent intervention—I do not entirely blame him, for the Government are behind it all. The Minister is supporting the Government wholeheartedly, and I am not prepared to give him any credit for doing that. It is disheartening to think that some of his hon. Friends are saying one thing outside the House of Commons and another in it. While they vote in one Lobby they express contrary views elsewhere. Despite an earlier intervention, in which one of my hon. Friends was asked to name an hon. Member who was doing this, I urge hon. Members opposite to realise that names alone are not involved in this.
It is to be hoped that the consciences of hon. Members opposite will lead them to take the right action on this occasion and to vote in the Division Lobby as they would speak to the teachers and others, in their constituencies. There must be an element of deceitfulness in the actions of any hon. Member who would vote one way in Parliament and speak another way in his constituency. I hope that all hon. Members will be truthful and honest and will vote in a way that will benefit their constituents.
Does the Minister consider that the basic starting salary for teachers gives a young man or woman sufficient money on which to live? Does he believe that by increasing the salary as the years go by he will attract the right calibre and the right number of people into the profession? Is the Minister's handling of this not against everything the party opposite stands for? The hon. Members opposite constantly speak about the enterprise of the individual. To say that the teaching profession is worthy of no more than £630 a year as a starting salary does not say much for the Government's view of the ability of teachers.
Several hon. Members have pointed out what people are getting married at a younger age. Considering the expenditure involved in getting married and setting up home, is it fair to expect a teacher to either start married life on £630 a year or to wait until later in life to get married? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to remember not only the expenses of our teachers but the cost this country will have to bear, not only in terms of money, if the profession deteriorates because, through the lack of financial incentive, we do not recruit sufficient teachers of the right calibre.
I regret that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) is not in his place because, after speaking of the proportion of the gross national product spent on education, he said that the amount we spend was greater than that of any other country except Sweden. Since he spoke I have discovered that Sweden spends less than we do. We spend 4.2 per cent. of the gross national product whereas Sweden spends 3·6 per cent. And America spends 4·6 per cent., although it is important to remember that America's earning capacity per head of the population is twice that of ours.
American private enterprise and industry make a greater contribution towards education than do their counterparts in Britain. It seems obvious, from the way in which the Minister rejected the Burnham award and introduced his startling figure of £630, that his respect for the trade union movement of this country is so low as to be virtually non existent. If this were not the case he would not have refused the Burnham award and would have taken greater account of what was said by the N.U.T. representatives.
I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards the Amendment. Considering that it would cost about £2 million, I wonder what would have been the cost had the right hon. Gentleman not flatly rejected the Burnham suggestion but had taken different action? He could have added these amounts to the Burnham Award and, by so doing, would have removed any animosity now existing between the N.U.T., the Burnham Committee, the Ministry and the Government. But, because of his disrespect for trade unionism, the right hon. Gentleman, supported by his Government, adopted this attitude.
It is all very regrettable. It has done great harm to our teaching profession, and can have a great effect on our educational system. It will discourage men and women from coming into the profession. Individuals who, throughout their educational careers, have had a great desire to be teachers will probably go into industry. If that happens, it is the Minister's attitude that will have prevented them from entering teaching. It is not right that the Minister should take advantage of the sense of vocation that many members of the profession feel. He is adopting on this issue the same attitude that the Government have adopted towards the nurses, and it is most unfair and unjust.
6.0 p.m.
When comparisons are made between the value of teaching and the value of other professions the figure of £630 must be seen to be a ridiculous starting salary. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment, and so give some impetus to those who may still want to enter this very honoured profession. Acceptance of the Amendment will represent only a short step, but it is a step that must be taken.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I would say two things to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). First, he will not be popular in by any means the whole of the teaching world if he refers to the N.U.T. as a trade union—

Mr. Wainwright: Why not?

Sir E. Boyle: I know that it is called a union, but I have been present on occasions when senior officials of the N.U.T. have, quite justifiably, strongly objected to its being described as a trade union.
My second point to him is that we are discussing whether the minimum scale should be £630 or £650—I will try to deal with the arguments advanced during the debate—and I do not believe that the recruitment of able, ambitious and well-qualified candidates will really be so greatly affected by this particular minimum.
Sir William, you have kindly allowed a fairly wide-ranging debate on this Amendment. In any case, I feel that I did, so to speak, exhaust my right, from all points of view, to speak further to the Committee on the general Second Reading issues that we discussed at length on 25th April. I will, therefore, just reply to some of the hon. Members who have spoken in this present debate.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) spoke of the importance of the pace and advance of education. He will no doubt recall that during this Parliament, since 1960, public expenditure on education has not only been advancing fast, but far faster than at any earlier period in our national history—by approximately 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. a year. The hon. Gentleman questioned whether I was really enthusiastic about higher education. As I reminded the House in an earlier debate, the total figures of capital investment starts for higher education next year will be more than double what they were at the beginning of this Parliament, and two of the most important programmes, for which I am personally responsible—the C.A.T.s and teacher training colleges—will have a considerably increased programme.
Finally, the hon. Member asked whether I was really concerned with

getting more teachers. I have mentioned this subject in nearly every major speech on education I have made in recent months. I would not have announced a target of 80,000 teachers in training by 1970, and I would not have committed myself and my successors to a current expenditure which, on teacher training alone, will be three or four times as much as it was three or four years ago—at current prices, at least £50 million a year by 1970—I would not have entered into these major commitments if I were not really concerned about getting more teachers. The supply of teachers must be the fundamental object of our educational policy today.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) raised a number of points. He spoke, and I agree, about the importance of the recruitment of men but, on the other hand, when one considers the policy for admission to training colleges one must always bear in mind that the biggest problem of the size of classes is in the primary and infants schools—and particularly in infants schools—where we are very heavily dependent on the recruitment of women teachers.
The hon. Gentleman also said that my approach to the subject was not sufficiently scientific. I am perfectly ready to consider ways in which we can have more comparison between the attractions of and salaries paid in the teaching profession and other professions, but I must say that I did not think that he set the Committee a shining example in social science by laying emphasis on what had been said by unnamed Members of Parliament. I remember that when I had a trained social scientist as my opponent in a Parliamentary election, he and I—with what was pardonable collusion—arranged to canvass two or three different streets and compare our canvass cards at the end. That taught me quite a good deal of what can be discovered by interviews in certain circumstances.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) made two points to which I should like to refer because, if I may say so, his was a serious speech, and it merits a reply. He said that it was unfair to give the impression that others were less concerned about differentials. I have never sought to deny what has


been done about differentials since the war, just as I have never sought to deny the intentions uttered for the future, but what I had before me on this occasion was this particular provisional agreement, and I had to bear in mind that in this agreement, it was intended to devote only 3 per cent. to differentials.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why we could not have a compromise. I shall refer later to the suggestion that the Government should have made more money available, but on the question of compromise I would remind hon. Members that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have never made an issue of the amount of this award. On the other hand, and I think that this is sometimes forgotten, the majority of the members of one of the Burnham Committees, as soon as battle between us was joined, made it quite clear that they were not prepared to move at all, either on the basic minimum, or on assimilation or on protection—the issues we are now discussing. It would not be right for me to reveal what was said in private discussion between the Burnham Committee and myself, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to read what I said about compromise in the Second Reading debate.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) was somewhat displeased with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton) when he rose in his place to comment on the figures given by the hon. Gentleman about the starting salary offered in a public school. I know the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on the public school sector and social priorities but, with respect, if on this occasion he looks at the figures he will find that my hon. Friend's point was a sound one. He might look at Group 3, Scale C. I have not taken advice on this, but have studied the figures in published documents. He will find that the starting salary of a good honours graduate with four years' study is now £880—almost exactly the same figure as that to which he referred.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) who, as he always does, made a thoughtful con-

tribution to the debate, asked what else the Government are trying to do to raise the status of the teaching profession. One answer that immediately occurs to me is surely the three-year course. No one can doubt the enormous importance that it will have for the whole standing of the teaching profession. The hon. Member also asked whether the difference between my scales and the Burnham scales would make any real difference to the teaching profession. My answer to that is that we are dealing in total in these debates with a redistribution of a sum of approximately £5 million, that is, £10 million over two years when we add everything together.
I certainly should not wish to exaggerate what one can do in one single award. All I say is that I believe that it is important that all Burnham awards should point, as it were, in the right direction and, as I think I made clear on Second Reading, I wanted to use the powers under Section 89 because the provisional agreement of 24th January pointed fundamentally in the wrong direction.
The object of the Amendment is to require the Minister to agree to a new basic scale of £650 a year. Naturally, we have had raised often this afternoon the question of the non-graduate three-year trained teachers in primary and secondary schools, but the principle which we are discussing also applies to assistant lecturers Grade A in further education establishments and in farm institutes. The Amendment is directly relevant to one of the main considerations which I urged in my letter dated 20th February to the chairman of the Burnham Committee. The Committee will recall that the Burnham Main Committee, in its proposals provisionally agreed on 24th January and ratified and formally submitted to me on 8th March, recommended an increase of £50 not just at the bottom of the scale but at every point on the basic scale. The Burnham Technical and Farm Institutes Committees followed suit later on.
In my letter of 20th February, I mentioned this proposal for a "flat-rate" increase of £50 as the second of four reasons why I could not agree with the Burnham proposals as they stood. I should like to quote from my letter because it is two months since I wrote


the original letter, and the statement of view which I expressed then still holds today.
I wrote:
I recognise the great importance that is widely afforded
to the basic scale
as a means both of unifying the profession and of offering a reasonable basic award to all teachers. I feel bound, however, to question on several grounds the main proposal in the provisional agreement to add the same amount throughout the length of the scale—an increase of £50 to every teacher, irrespective of age, service or other circumstances.
Taking first the recruitment situation, while I consider that the longer term prospects and rewards for advancement are the most effective means of increasing the size and quality of the teaching force, I accept that the basic scale has its part to play. But I do not consider that at present the minimum of the scale, taken by itself, is deterring young people from taking up teaching, whether as graduates or as non graduates; and though I should not wish to argue that in an agreement that is to last for two years the minimum for the lowest paid teacher should remain unchanged, I do not believe that the Committee's proposals, which would have the effect of increasing it by 14 per cent. on this occasion and by 25 per cent. over the 15 month period since the end of 1961, car. be justified.
Since hon. Members have talked about training college recruitment, I can mention to the Committee that from all the returns which I have had so far, this autumn we shall achieve a training college population of over 50,000 for the first time. While I cannot give more precise figures to the Committee, it seems to me quite clear already that the training colleges will be better placed to cope with a further increased pressure of numbers of well-qualified applicants than there were last year.
6.15 p.m.
After dealing with the recruitment point, I went on in my letter to say something about quality. I said:
Moreover, teachers, like everyone else, usually incur bigger financial responsibilities as they begin to move forward in their careers, and pay adjustments through the basic scale should surely take some account of this. It also seems right, bearing in mind the heavy rate of 'wastage' of young women teachers after only a few years in post, that some recognition is due in a revision of salaries to the value of years of service given. I think that it is from their mid-twenties and early thirties when their financial responsibilities are growing rapidly and before the majority of them car. expect additional allowances for posts of responsibility, that teachers most need help through adjustments of the basic scale.

I cannot help feeling that it is neither wise nor fair that no more should be offered to those teachers with some years of experience in the schools and with growing responsibilities than to the youngest beginners,
I apologise for quoting that letter again, but it expresses as well as I can express it the basic policy in this dispute.
It was with these considerations in mind that I framed my own subsequent proposals, which I put to the Burnham Main Committee on 20th March only after the Committee, for its part, declined in any way to modify its proposals in the light of my letter. I then put forward a basic scale to start, not at £650, but at £630, and to run to the same maximum as Burnham had proposed of £1,250, but in 15 years instead of 16 and with increases over current salary of from £70 to £110 instead of only £50 on the upper half of the scale.
To consider the Amendment on its merits, if the minimum of the scale were to be raised to £650, it would be necessary, quite clearly, in order to preserve any sort of logical incremental pattern to increase the next two points of my proposed scale as well, that is to say it would
have to run £650-£680-£710-£740, and thereafter as I have proposed it. Now, unless one were to propose corresponding reductions in the additions for higher qualifications and longer training—and this is not suggested in the Amendment—these increases must also benefit graduates and others whose starting salaries are already above £650. Therefore, the Amendment in effect, represents increases of £20 a year to between 40,000 and 50,000 primary and secondary school teachers and to about 1,300 assistant lecturers at a total cost approaching £1 million a year.
I have made clear from the start of this controversy that I could not agree to an increase in the amount of a salary settlement costing about £21 million a year, an increase of almost 7 per cent. over current salary levels, for primary and secondary school teachers alone, only 15 months after the previous increase of over 14 per cent. I should like to remind hon. Members, who suggested that we could avoid all this controversy if only the Government and local authorities would make rather more money available, that I said on Second Reading:
…I do not relish the precedent that if the Burnham Committee concentrates its


efforts on the basic scale the Government will attend to the differentials.
Still less do I relish the precedent that if the Burnham Committee concentrates on getting the minimum right the Government will attend to getting the progression right in the upper part of the scale. To those who expect that we will get out of the difficulty through the Government making more money available I would say that I cannot believe that that would be right.
I also said on Second Reading that in this Parliament
Against the general background of our incomes policy, teachers have been treated well, and rightly so." —[OFF1mAt. REPORT, 25th April, 1963; Vol. 676, c. 442.1
This means that I can accept the Amend-men only at the expense of some other part of my proposals, and I must tell the Committee that I simply should not be prepared to do this.
Obviously I could not agree to any reduction of the proportion of the increase devoted to differentials, because this, after all, was the first of the principles which I laid down in my letter. No one on either side of the Committee is suggesting that I should diminish the instalment of assimilation that I have proposed. In fact, in due course we shall be coming to an Amendment to increase that instalment. If anyone proposes that the reduction should fall on the bigger increases that I have proposed towards the end of the basic scale, all I can say is that I do not believe this would be in the interests of the teaching profession, for the reasons which I set out in my letter.
I should like to comment on one or two calculations which have appeared in the pamphlet The Burnham Story,to which some reference was made in our earlier debates. Here I refer first to the calculation that the figure of £650—this has been alluded to this after-noon—
represents the minimum needed if by the end of the currency of the present agreement the new entrant to the teaching profession is to enjoy the same spending power as the corresponding young teacher in 1945.
But what are the facts as a justification for this Amendment? I accept that the argument is strongest in the case of the non-graduate man teacher. The minimum that I am now proposing for the three-year trained non-graduate teacher

in 1963 is exactly double the 1945 minimum of £315. As the cost of living has also just about doubled over the same period, this means—and I accept this conclusion—that the minimum basic scale salary that I am proposing represents for the non-graduate man teacher just about the same purchasing power as the corresponding teacher had in 1945. But do not let us forget that the non-graduate man teacher represents only about one in nine of the young teachers entering service—

Mr. G. Thomas: One in nine are graduates?

Sir E. Boyle: No, I am talking about the non-graduate man teacher. There are the women, too. I am coming on to consider the other categories.
Therefore, to get a fair overall picture, one has to consider the other categories as well. At least as many of the men on the minimum are graduates, and for them the percentage increase since 1945 under my proposals would be not 100 per cent. but either 121 per cent. or, if they have good honours or higher degrees, 157 per cent.
But then we must also remember that about three-quarters of the new entrants to teaching are women, who have benefited from the introduction of equal pay during this period, and for them—I am not complaining; I am pointing out that this is a point which is highly relevant to the calculations in the pamphlet to which attention has been paid—the percentage increases since 1945 range from 123 per cent. for the non-graduate teacher to 189 per cent. for a good honours graduate.
In any case, I could not agree that it is fair to draw comparisons only with 1945. Do not let us forget that the minimum salary of £315 then introduced for a three-year trained man teacher remained in force for six years until 31st March, 1951, during which time prices rose by over 30 per cent. Indeed, I cannot help feeling that there has been a very strong element of special pleading in the choice of 1945 as a base year, as I shall show by drawing a number of different comparisons. My proposed minimum of £630 represents an increase of 5 per cent. since 1st January, 1962, when the 1961 Burnham Report was introduced, compared


with a cost-of-living increase of 4 per cent. It represents an increase of 15 per cent. since 1st October, 1959, when the 1959 Burnham Report was introduced, compared with a cost-of-living increase of 12 per cent., and it represents an increase of 60 per cent. since 1st April, 1951, compared with a cost of living increase of about 50 per cent.
In other words, while the real value of the minimum of the basic scale fell considerably between 1945 and 1951, it has risen considerably between 1951 and today. It represents also an increase of about 230 per cent, since 1939, compared with a cost-of-living increase of about 200 per cent. So even the non-graduate man teacher—the one in nine selected as the point of criticism—will be better off in real terms under my proposals than his predecessor at any time since 1939, except perhaps in the period immediately following the introduction of the 1945 Burnham Report, with whom he will be about level.
I should like to turn to a second argument which has been advanced against the proposed minimum salary of £630, and it has been referred to today—namely, that this represents a net sum of under £10 a week, after deductions for tax, superannuation and National Insurance contributions, which is insufficient for a young teacher in lodgings to live on and grossly incommensurate with earnings in industry.
I suggest that this comparison with industry is misleading on a number of counts. For one thing—and this is particularly important—we tend to overlook how short a time the newly-entered teacher spends on the minimum point of the scale. At most, it will be one year. For the majority of teachers who take up their first appointments in September it will, owing to the payment of partial increments on 1st April each year, be only seven months. Thereafter, unlike the industrial worker, the teacher is in no respect analogous to the lower-paid industrial worker. The teacher is assured of regular salary increments throughout his first 16 years of service with the very strong likelihood, especially for the men, of earning allowances for posts of responsibility, which may range from £100 to as much as £1,600 in addition. As hon. Members opposite

know, no fewer than 50,000 of the posts of special responsibility are in primary schools.
Moreover, although it is true that in October, 1962, the average weekly earnings for men in industry were close on £16, for women, who make up such a considerable proportion of the teaching profession, they were little over £8—and three-quarters of the new entrants to teaching are women. Nor is it proper to compare the average earnings in industry, which cover workers of all ages and length of experience and include payments for overtime, night work and so on, with the minimum of salary scales. If one is to make a comparison of this kind, it should surely be with the average salaries of all teachers. At 31st March, 1962, the average salaries for all teachers had risen to £1,232 for men and £1,031 for women. After the further 7 per cent. increases which, as soon as we can get the Bill through, will be effective from 1st April last, these will become about £1,315 and £1,100, or over £25 a week for men and over £21 for women.
I recognise that my reduction of the minimum from £650, as recommended by the Burnham Committee, to £630 will naturally cause disappointment and even some resentment to the young teachers concerned. I do not dispute this point at all. I have talked this afternoon in cold figures which I hoped would be helpful to the Committee as a whole, but I fully recognise that over a long period the teaching profession seemed to be, and still seems to many to be, a badly paid profession. All I say is that I believe today the picture is very different from what it was before 1959, and considerably different from what it was before January, 1962. In any case, I still believe—and I base this on opinions expressed to me from many quarters before I intervened in these negotiations—that the interests of the teachers as a whole will be better served by having rather smaller increases for the very youngest, in order to be able to offer the substantially higher basic scale figures which I have proposed for those rather older teachers with from seven to 15 years' service whose educational and personal responsibilities seem to me to be the most deserving and demanding.
I have deliberately shaped the basic scale to give more where I believe personal financial responsibilities are heaviest. If the parties in the education service decide to examine this criterion of financial obligation further in the light of teachers with family commitments, I would not wish to stand in their way. But for the reasons which I have outlined, I must ask hon. Members to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister think that it is fair to make a comparison between teachers and industrial workers? Would it not be better to make a comparison between the salaries of teachers and the salaries of people who have been to college or university and then gone into industry?

Sir E. Boyle: There are difficulties in all these comparisons, but the analogy between the teacher and the lower-paid industrial worker has been drawn quite often in the course of the dispute, and I felt bound to set out this evening what seemed to be the fair comparison on the figures.

Mr. Short: Will the Minister expand on his last sentence? His last few words were, perhaps, the most interesting in the whole of his speech. Will he explain what he meant?

Sir E. Boyle: No, I cannot expand them further this evening, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has understood the significance of them, that my mind is not closed on certain issues. While I cannot this evening expand on those words—I think that it would not even be in order to do so—I put that passage in my speech deliberately to show that I have not closed my mind to an examination of certain important questions.

6.30 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: The Minister has attempted to blind the Committee with statistics. Although it is very interesting and useful, no doubt, to have some of the facts on the record, I do not propose to follow him in all his calculations, because I think that they were to a large extent intended to obscure the real issue which is before us today. The purpose of the Amendment is relatively simple. It provides for the starting salary

of teachers at the outset of their professional career. We suggest that the Minister would have been far better advised to accept the Burnham recommendation instead of making the reduction which he proposes to impose upon Burnham and the profession in the scales which he has published.
Unfortunately, although the right hon. Gentleman gave a good many dates and figures, he did not put the whole matter in perspective any more than some of his hon. Friends, particularly the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery), did. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to understand the very strong feeling in the profession and the argument which, I believe, very strongly influenced the Burnham Committee, that an increase of this kind in the basic scale was needed partly, at least, to offset the reductions which had been made by his predecessor, now Lord Eccles.
The Minister spoke of the undesirability of a flat £50 increase across the board, but Lord Eccles gave a flat decrease of £30 across the board, and it was largely because of that—a point which has really not been made in the discussion on the Amendment—that the Burnham Committee recommended, in effect, the restoration of the cut by Sir David Eccles, as he then was, and the making of some allowance for increases in the cost of living since that date. The proposal in our Amendment, therefore, is fully justified.
The Minister made some comparisons with the situation in October, 1959. I mention this date particularly among the many to which he referred because, on Second Reading, speaking of the very point to which the Amendment is directed, the Minister said:
If one looks at the basic scale, we have nothing of which to be ashamed. The hon. Gentleman"—
my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) I believe—
referred to the Bow Group pamphlet of 1959, which said that the basic scale ought to go up by 20 per cent. It has done so since then." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1963; Vol. 676, c. 550.]
The point was that the Bow Group had at that time urged that the then basic scale should be increased by 20 per cent. The fact that it has gone up by that much since then is neither here nor there,


because, as the Minister said, the cost of living and, for many young teachers, heavy expenditure on rent, has gone up considerably since 1959.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) pointed out, owing to the operation of the quota system, many young teachers are obliged to take their first posts away from home. Many of them cannot work in their own neighbourhood and get over the first year or two of professional lives with some assistance from home. They have to go into lodgings and pay, sometimes, quite extortionate rents in the areas in which they are obliged to seek employment. Plainly, these factors should be taken into account in considering the Amendment.
To put the matter another way, when the Minister's proposals were first published, the comment in Education was that the non-graduates on the basic scale, the people we are primarily concerned with in the Amendment, had had an increase of 90 per cent. since 1945 in their salary whereas the others, the people for whom the Minister says he is more concerned, the honours graduates, people in posts of responsibility, headmasters and headmistresses, and so on, had had increases ranging from 140 per cent. to 215 per cent. Therefore, there seems to be a strong case in equity for suggesting that the person on the basic scale should now have consideration.
Some hon. Members opposite have spoken as though the Minister had done something remarkable in the way of differentials and increasing the salaries of those who remain in the profession a long time. But this is really not so. The Minister's increases are modest in themselves, and then, by another matter which we shall discuss later, he has taken away from a very large number of those who would have these increases the £30 a year to which they thought they would be entitled.
There has thus been that diminution, and, in any case, on the basic scale, although it is true that one reaches the top in fifteen years instead of sixteen, thereafter one is no better off under the Minister's proposal. Any idea that a teacher will have a long period of higher salary to look forward to, as the result of the Minister's intervention, is not true. There will be just a few years during which some teachers will have increases, some of them very modest indeed.
The Burnham Committee most emphatically said that the starting salary proposed in the Amendment is right. When it received the Minister's proposals, the Burnham Committee said:
We have carefully examined the Minister's proposals. In the opinion of the Committee, the proposed minimum of £630 is not a suitable salary for a three-year trained teacher. It is our opinion that this is indequate.
The members of the Burnham Committee ought to know what should be regarded as a suitable starting salary for young teachers. The Minister has himself admitted that the non-graduate man teacher is not better off in real terms than he was in 1945. He made a little play about women teachers, but, after all, it was just a matter of simple justice that they should have equal pay. The fact that they did not have it in 1945, because the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) refused to accept an Amendment to the 1944 Bill to give equal pay on the ground that to do so would be an undue intervention in the affairs of the Burnham Committee, is no support to the Minister in his present attitude.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Did not the House of Commons accept the proposal for equal pay by a majority, and was not that decision altered, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) saying that he could not go on fighting the war unless it were altered?

Mrs. White: I should not attribute that opinion to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). I have no recollection of it being on the record. It is true that the House of Commons accepted the equal pay Amendment and that the Government then forced its retraction the following day.
The Government are taking a very similar attitude towards the young teacher to that which they take on the matter of grants to students who enter matrimony below the age of 25. The social pattern is changing. We may like it. We may not. We may think that it is wise. We may think that it is unwise. The fact is that young people are marrying at very much earlier ages than used to be the case. This factor should be taken into account. After all, it is not only the male teachers who have to face the responsibility of married life. They may often marry women teachers who may have


to try to exist in family life on a salary which is quite inadequate to sustain them.
The Government are just closing their eyes to a changed pattern in social life. They should take into account the fact that, whether we like it or not, young people are marrying younger and younger and that an adequate starting salary is of importance to them. I cannot believe that the Minister could be satisfied that a salary of £650 is too much to pay to a teacher entering upon this most important of professions.
There are many other arguments which we could adduce to support the Amendment, but we are all aware that a little later another matter, on which an even more stubborn Minister of the Crown has made an even graver mistake, has to come before the House of Commons. Therefore, it behoves us to come fairly rapidly now to a conclusion on this issue. I hope very much that my hon. Friends, and, also, some hon. Members opposite who have given certain pledges to teachers in their constituencies, will support the young teachers and vote for the Amendment.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I do not think that the Minister's reply was at all satisfactory. Many of us have great respect for him. We remember when he made a very momentous decision in 1956 and earned the admiration of all who believed that those who were in public life should have the courage of their convictions. It is very difficult to believe that this is the Minister's decision. He is intelligent and very sensible and for him to have made a decision of this kind is out of keeping with everything he has done since he has been a Member of Parliament. It makes me feel that this decision is the outcome of the "gentlemen in Whitehall who always know best".
I cannot understand why the Minister should not have allowed the agreement to have gone through and then have come to the House of Commons for the powers he is now seeking. Countless thousands of others also fail to understand why he did not do this. I am certain that within the next five or ten years the Minister will look back upon this incident as one of his least popular actions and, certainly, as the most undesirable decision that he made.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the big problem today was in connection with primary schools. More than 50 per cent. of those who start in the professions take up their first position in a primary school. It is there that we need the man and woman power. It is there that we are unlikely to get it, because what the Minister has done hits particularly at those who go to the primary schools.
6.45 p.m.
The Minister said that the teaching profession is one with which it is very difficult to make any comparison, that it cannot be compared with industry, or with the legal profession. However, there are teachers who are already in the employ of the Government and with whom he could compare the teachers we are talking about today. I refer to the teachers in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. They are the comparison. He could not possibly get the teachers required for the Services if he offered them this starting salary. If this amount is not good enough to attract the right type of man and woman for teaching in the Services, where at least they teach grown-up, mature and adult people, we hope, how in the name of fortune can it be good enough to attract the men and women the nation requires if the children are to turn out to be the well-educated, decent, responsible citizens we wish them to be?
The teaching profession is, of all professions, the one which will make or break the country. Outside the home it is the men and women in the schools who have the biggest influence in determining the kind of citizens that the children will grow into. They need those qualities essential to people who will play such a dramatic part in framing the values which the nation is to embrace. They will determine to a large extent the values which our nation will take unto itself.
I believe that the Minister is doing a disservice to the country's future in interfering, as he has done here, and imposing upon people who had come to an agreement something which 99 per cent. of those in the local authorities and 99 per cent. of those in the profession did not want. I have talked to scores of teachers, some of whom will benefit from the Minister's interference, but who


would have preferred it to have been otherwise, because they believe that this is the road to disaster. They believe it to be the road to the gentlemen of Whitehall always knowing best. They see it as a move towards taking from the local authorities and the teaching profession their right to have some say in what should be done in the profession.
The Minister may think that he is being very generous in framing these last proposals which he is imposing upon the profession and the local authorities, but some day we shall realise the real importance and the real value of teachers. When we do, we shall pay teachers what we now pay generals and we shall pay generals what we now pay teachers.

Mr. Willey: We have had a thoroughly unsatisfactory reply and—worse still—an

unsympathetic reply. I am sure that the Committee would be anxious to discuss this matter further and impress on the right hon. Gentleman the error of his judgment. However, the Committee realises that we are anxious to resume as a House to discuss another matter. I hope that in these circumstances the Committee will be willing to take a decision now. I call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends and bon. Members opposite to oppose the Government and say that we are serious about teacher supply and cannot afford to regard a starting salary of £650 as too much.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 235.

Division No. 124.]
AYES
[6.50 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Grey, Charles
Mitchison, G. R.


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, Walter


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morrie, John


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Moyle, Arthur


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Neal, Harold


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
O'Malley, B. K.


Beaney, Alan
Hannan, William
Oram, A. E.


Bence, Cyril
Harper, Joseph
Paget, R. T.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Healey, Denis
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Benson, Sir George
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Pargiter, G. A.


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parkin, B. T,


Blyton, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Paton, John


Boardman, H.
Hilton, A. V.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Holman, Percy
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bowles, Frank
Houghton, Douglas
Peart, Frederick


Boyden, James 
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bradley, Tom
Hoy, James H.
Prentice, R. E.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, A. E.
Reid, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Collick, Percy
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, Edward


Darling, George
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dodds, Norman
Lubbock, Eric
Small, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride N.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness(Caerphilly)
McInnes, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, John (wallsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McLeavy, Frank
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stonehouse, John


Fitch, Alan
Mahon, Simon
Stones, William


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marsh, Richard
Swain, Thomas


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Taverne, D.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Thornton, Ernest


Greenwood, Anthony
Milne, Edward
Thorpe, Jeremy




Wainwright, Edwin
Willey, Frederick
Winterbottom, R. E.


Warbey, William
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Woof, Robert


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


White, Mrs. Elrene
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Zilliacus, K.


Whitlock, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)



Wilkins, W. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Allason, James
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Arbuthnot, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Awdry, Daniel (Chlppenham)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Partridge, E.


Balniel, Lord
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Barber, Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Barlow, Sir John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Percival, Ian


Barter, John
Hendry, Forbes
Peyton, John


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hiley, Joseph
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bell, Ronald
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Berkeley, Humphry
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitman, Sir James


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bidgood, John C.
Hobson, Sir John
Pott, Percivall


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Hollingworth, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bishop, F. P.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, Alan
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hornby, R. P.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bourns-Arton, A.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Box, Donald
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pym, Francis


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Braine, Bernard
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ramsden, James


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rees, Hugh


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Bullard, Denys
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roots, William


Chataway, Christopher
Kershaw, Anthony
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Ronald


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Cooke, Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Corfield, F. V.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter


Coulson, Michael
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Craddock, Sir Beresford(Spelthorne)
Lloyd, RtHn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Crawley, Aidan
Longbottom, Charles
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cunningham, Knox
Loveys, Walter H.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Curran, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Summers, Sir Spencer


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Duncan, Sir James
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Teeling, Sir William


Elliott, R. W. (New'ctle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)
Temple, John M.


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maitland, Sir John
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Errington, Sir Eric
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F.J.
Marlowe, Anthony
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Marten, Neil
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Farr, John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Turner, Colin


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Freeth, Denzil
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gammans, Lady
Mills, Stratton
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gardner, Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, John
Walder, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Mott-Radcylffe, Sir Charles
Walker, Peter


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Neave, Airey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Goodhew, Victor
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wall, Patrick


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Green, Alan
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Webster, David


Gresham Cooke, R.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Whitelaw, William


Hall, John (Wycombe)









Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Wise, A. R.
Woollam, John


Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick 



Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woodhouse, C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Batsford.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

CHIEF ENAHORO (HOME SECRETARY'S ACTION)

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the action of the Home Secretary in failing to reveal either to this House or to the courts that he had grounds for believing that Chief Enahoro would not be permitted representation by counsel of his choice.
We are not concerned tonight with the broad issue which has been before the House on a number of occasions during the past few weeks. We are not concerned with the issue of the return or otherwise of Chief Enahoro to Nigeria. We are concerned with one of the more discreditable incidents in what, from start to finish, has been a highly discreditable story—discreditable, in a sense, to the House and to the Government and, in particular, to the Home Secretary, whose stubbornness and inhumanity alone should have disqualified him from holding the office that he holds. Nothing that we do or say tonight—nothing that we can do or say tonight—can alter the decision which the Home Secretary took —or that the House took in authorising the Home Secretary—to deport Chief Enahoro.
What we can do—and I submit that if the honour of this House is to be maintained, what we must do—is to censure the Home Secretary for a grave dereliction of his duty to this House, in blatantly withholding from it information in his possession which was highly material to the decision with which we, as a House, were faced—and, indeed, deliberately using words the effect of which could only be to mislead the House into assuming the exact opposite of the truth which he knew.
Let me remind the House of the Home Secretary's words, on 21st March. He said:
An undertaking was given to the Divisional Court and repeated to the Appeal Committee

that, if the Chief Justice gave his certificate for a named English barrister to appear for Enahoro, the Nigerian Government would not refuse that barrister entry into Nigeria merely because he was going to represent Enahoro. They would not refuse him entry, unless in his particular case there were other and good reasons.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wilson: I shall deal with that point in a moment.
The Home Secretary went on to say:
That was how the Division Court and the Appeal Committee interpreted the undertaking. I took particular trouble when the matter came to me, because it seemed to me of great importance. to check with the Nigerian Government whether this undertaking had been correctly interpreted. I have been assured by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nigeria that the undertaking has the meaning and was intended to have the meaning which I have stated.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
They would not refuse him entry, unless in his particular case there were other and good reasons.
The House was meant to take this at its face value. In case there was any doubt, the Home Secretary referred to the interpretation put upon this undertaking by the courts. I will come in a few moments to the question of the interpretation which the courts put upon it.
The Home Secretary was misleading us in that statement—and, lest any hon. Member were not satisfied, he went on to tell us how he had communicated with the Nigerian Government to get the matter spelled out. He said:
I have been assured by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nigeria that the undertaking has the meaning and was intended to have the meaning which I have stated.
Hon. Members opposite cannot Laugh this off; it is far too serious a matter even for them.
The one thing that the Home Secretary did not tell us—and what he deliberately withheld from us—was the fact that the Government of Nigeria gave him an additional piece of information which completely contradicted the impression that he was at pains to give the House and which he gave to the courts, namely, that Chief Enahoro could have the counsel of his choice


provided he did not choose the two counsel that he wanted to choose. That was the qualification.
This statement we did not get from the hon. Gentleman—although he knew it—until it was dragged out of him last Thursday, when he had already got his miserable deportation order through the House and when it was too late to affect the vote. I have sufficient faith in this House, even with the present balance of the parties, to believe that if it had known, a month ago, what it knows now, the Home Secretary's decision to deport Chief Enahoro would have been repudiated by the vote of this House. Many hon. Members who voted for the Home Secretary did so most unhappily, as was made very plain during the debate. I believe that their sense of the honour of this country and of the House would not have permitted them to vote as they did if the Home Secretary had been honest with the House on that occasion.
Now we get the excuse that the Home Secretary's qualifying phrase
unless there were other and good reasons
was meant at that time to make it clear to the House that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and Mr. Gratiaen, Q.C., would be excluded. That is what he told us last Thursday. This is not how the House understood it. It was not how the majority of hon. Members opposite understood it. Are we really to be told tonight that all the hon. Members who voted for the Home Secretary understood it then in that sense? Did they understand it? Of course they did not. The Home Secretary got his vote by suppressing vital information.
The only excuse put forward last Thursday—and I expect that we shall get it again tonight—is the one based on the morality of an unscrupulous hire-purchase trader who gets his pound of flesh on the basis of a few words in small print and in incomprehensible wording on the back of a hire-purchase form. What a hire-purchase financier may consider right is one thing; what is expected of a Home Secretary in his dealings with the House is another. The hire-purchase trader at least had his qualifications printed somewhere; the Home Secretary did not.
Nor is the Home Secretary alone in this; there is the Attorney-General. In the same debate, he said:
A point was raised about whether it is a good or a bad thing that the Chief should be represented by a British Q.C. at his trial. The only interest of Her Majesty's Government in that was not in securing that a British Q.C. should represent him, but that they should be assured that he should have the counsel of his choice from all those qualified to appear. It was thought necessary to secure that to see that he would have the counsel of his choice.
There is no qualification there.
Her Majesty's Government had no interest at all in seeing whether he had a Nigerian or a British Q.C. It is entirely a matter for him to choose by whom he prefers to be represented.
The Attorney-General will not deny that he used those words. There is no qualification in them.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on:
For that reason alone, the Home Secretary thought it necessary to clarify that matter with the Nigerian Government." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 603678.1
I repeat what the Attorney-General said:
It was thought necessary to secure that to see that he would have the counsel of his choice.
This was clear, and the House regarded it as clear. Did any hon. Member, hearing the Attorney-General, think that by that phrase he meant that the two most likely counsel would be excluded? Can any hon. Members get up and say that, having heard those words from the Attorney-General, they thought they related to the exclusion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen? Of course hon. Members did not understand that.
What I must ask—and we must be told this tonight—is whether the Attorney-General knew, when he used these words, what the Home Secretary now tells us he knew. Did the Attorney-General know? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Prime Minister may do so. But if the Attorney-General does not intend to seek to catch your eye, I think that we have the right to ask him to come to that Box now and


tell us whether he knew. [HON. MEMBERS: Answer."] He refuses to get up to tell us.
This is a very serious matter for the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman may say that he was misled by the Home Secretary, as the House was. That would aggravate the Home Secretary's offence. On the other hand, he may tell us, if only he would answer, that he condoned and compounded the offence by adding his authority to that of the Home Secretary, because, in these matters, the authority of the Attorney-General is very much greater than that of the Home Secretary, quite apart from the question of who the two individuals may be at any period.
The Attorney-General, whoever he may be, is not only the legal adviser to the Crown and to the Government. He is also a servant of this House. It is, from time to time, his duty to advise the House on legal matters—a duty going beyond his responsibility to the Government and the Crown—and the hon. and learned Gentleman, like his predecessors, has frequently accepted this duty and has told us that it was his duty to advise the House in a particular legal sense.
If that is so, and if, in giving the House this legal advice, he knew then what the Home Secretary now says he himself knew, then the hon. and learned Gentleman's use of words whose only effect could have been to mislead the House raises an issue of a different dimension even from the action of the Home Secretary.
There is one more question I must ask before I turn to another aspect. Did the Government as a whole know, or was this a guilty secret locked in the bosom of the Home Secretary? When the Cabinet considered this question, was it told? The Prime Minister spoke in these Enahoro debates on two occasions. Did he, in these interventions, know that Enahoro would be denied counsel of his choice if counsel of his choice turned out to be either my hon. and learned Friend or Mr. Gratiaen? Did the Prime Minister know that the Home Secretary had been told this?
I hope that the Prime Minister, when he replies, will be completely frank with the House on this matter, because we have a right to know. If the Prime Minister did know, and the Government

as a whole knew, then what we are dealing with tonight is not a personal act of bad faith by one or two Ministers; it is a conspiracy to withhold material information from the House in order to get through the Division Lobby a Motion which would have been rejected if that information had not been withheld. The House, therefore, has a right to insist on the truth, and we want to have the truth from the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister tonight. We do not want to have to drag it out of them in a month's time.
I want to turn to the other side of the question. In his statement of 21st March, the Home Secretary explained the assurances that he gave us by reference to concern expressed in the courts. One of the reasons he gave us for accepting the assurance—which he repeated—was, as he said, the interpretation put on it by the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee. In his affidavit, dated 25th April, which is a public document, the Home Secretary made it clear that he felt that he had to be satisfied on the question of representation before he could make his original deportation order.
I quote from that affidavit:
The inquiries into the facts which I require to know in order to enable me to discharge my statutory duty were not completed until 12th March. Two aspects of the case in particular protracted these inquiries.
I shall quote only the first of these, since it is the only one of the two which is relevant.
First, the Applicant had submitted that there were serious grounds for apprehension that if he was tried he would not be allowed counsel of his choice. An undertaking had been given to this Honourable Court on behalf of the Nigerian Government in this connection, but questions had been asked in the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords about the form and effect of this undertaking. I considered that in the interests of the Applicant it was crucial that I should be left in no uncertainty about this. After an approach to the Nigerian Government through the British High Commissioner in Lagos I received on 11th March an assurance of a satisfactory character from the Prime Minister of Nigeria.
That was the right hon. Gentleman's phrase—
…an assurance or a satisfactory character…
There were no qualifications, no ex-elusions, no hint of them, nothing in small print.
In this affidavit, which was sworn on oath, the Home Secretary said that he had received
…an assurance of a satisfactory character …
The right hon. Gentleman said that in a context which showed that by "satisfactory" he meant something which would reassure the learned judges who had raised this question about representation. That is why I must ask what it was, in the context of the court hearing, that the right hon. Gentleman meant by this assurance of a satisfactory character.
Again, only last Thursday at Question Time, when he was referring to the assurance he gave to the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee, he said:
…it seemed to them to be satisfactory." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1963; Vol. 678, c 633.]
What the right hon. Gentleman said may have been satisfactory to the learned judges, but this question can only be elucidated by reference to the doubts which the right hon. Gentleman referred to and which were expressed by the learned judges involved in this case.
As the House knows—because all of this is on record—both the Lord Chief Justice and the other learned judges made this a central issue. Lord Parker said:
If I felt there was a real danger of that"—
a refusal of entry to counsel—
I should myself hesitate before refusing some sort of relief to this Applicant
And in relation to the exclusion of Mr. Gratiaen, who, the House may remember, was excluded specifically because he was to defend Chief Awolowo, Lord Parker said:
However oppressive the action may be in depriving Chief Awolowo of legal representation of his choice, I am satisfied that if this Applicant were returned there would be no oppressive action of that sort taken in his case.
The Lord Chief Justice, therefore, because of the affidavit by the Home Secretary, said that he was satisfied that there would be no oppressive action in this case of the sort taken in Chief Awolowo's case.
The Home Secretary attempts to interpret the minds of learned judges, but I will not. But every hon. Member might

wonder whether, in fact, the affidavit of the Home Secretary did not have a direct bearing on the result of this case, because the words I have read suggest that it might perhaps have done so.
Following this question at the Appeal Committee, Lord Reid said this to counsel for the Nigerian Government:
Their Lordships wish a reply on the allegation that there may not be a fair trial if this Petitioner is returned …they wish you to concentrate on the matter of the trial which can be expected if this man is returned to Nigeria.
Then, learned counsel for the Nigerian Government interpreted this as referring to the exclusion of Chief Awolowo's counsel, Mr. Gratiaen.
After some argument about that, and a repetition of the Home Secretary's assurance, Lord Reid asked:
If it had been said that the authorised counsel would be permitted to enter once the authority had been given by the Chief Justice, that would have been wholly satisfactory. But how do we know that he will not be prevented from entering on some other ground altogether? …May I take it that the substance of the undertaking is that, if the Chief Justice authorises the appearance at this trial of some counsel, the entry of that counsel into Nigeria will not be prohibited on any ground?
That was what the learned judge at the Appeal Committee asked counsel for the Nigerian Government.
Learned counsel replied:
I do not think that I could give that undertaking because all sorts of things might happen between the Chief Justice giving his certificate and the person arriving, as the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, with smallpox.
In other words, the answer given when the assurance was asked by learned judges in another place was that if the Lord Chief Justice gave a certificate counsel would not be refused entry unless there was some other grounds, such as smallpox, and we never heard about smallpox from the Home Secretary, nor has he called it in aid now.
Lord Reid went on to say these words, which should be carefully weighed by hon. Members opposite:
I think one can say that it would not be quite playing fair with the courts in this country if one found that a person who was authorised was refused admission on arrival for some reason which they refused to disclose.
Has the Home Secretary the reason for the refusal to permit my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich to enter Nigeria?
Referring to the undertaking which was in the words which the Home Secretary gave, counsel later said:
The word 'merely'"—
and the House will remember that the Home Secretary used the word "merely"—
was inserted because there might well be reasons which, the court would appreciate, fell quite outside the question of trial which would be all the normal reasons, if I can use that word, for a Government to refuse entry to an individual which they must keep to themselves but in relation to this trial made it abundantly clear no such counsel would be refused.
Again, referring to the exclusion of Chief Awolowo's counsel, Mr. Gratiaen, Lord Reid said:
The Government of Nigeria have, in effect, said, 'We will not do that again'. If one is assuming good faith, they will not do it again.
In the judgment of the Appeal Committee of another place, relying solely in this respect on the affidavit of the Home Secretary, the judge in question said:
The Government of Nigeria have, in effect, said, 'We will not do that again'. If one is asuming good faith, they will not do it again.
How did he come to be misled? He was misled by the affidavit of the Home Secretary and in exactly the same way as the House was misled—because the Home Secretary did not tell the courts any more than he told the House, that he had been privately tipped off by the Government of Nigeria that these two counsel would not be allowed in.
The Attorney-General was in the same position. We know that the Attorney-General is very good at getting on the telephone halfway through a debate and getting an answer. Did he get on the telephone about this? I have already asked this and we have still not had a reply—when the Home Secretary prepared his affidavit, presumably with the advice of and on the advice of the Attorney-General, did the Attorney-General not think it right to advise the Home Secretary that in his affidavit before the Appeal Committee of another place it was his duty to disclose to that court everything that was relevant to its consideration of this matter?
In commending his statement to the House, the Home Secretary, as was the Attorney-General, was concerned to give us the impression that his assurance met

the doubts of Her Majesty's judges as expressed in February. He went so far as to say how they interpreted it. He said, in relation to those doubts, that he went back to the Government of Nigeria and secured an assurance of a "satisfactory character". Can he honestly say, after what I have just quoted from Lord Reid and from the Lord Chief Justice about the points on which they wanted to be satisfied, that he had secured an assurance of a satisfactory character, and that he did tell them honestly the full truth of what assurance he had received?
Can the right hon. Gentleman honestly say, after the doubts they had expressed, that if he had told them what he has told us now they would have interpreted it as being satisfactory? Does he—we have to get this from him tonight—justify the stating on oath in his affidavit that he had secured a satisfactory assurance when he had withheld—on oath—from the affidavit the most relevant item of all on which the judges concerned put not one, but several dozens of questions?
I repeat what I said last Thursday. This is the most flagrant case of misleading the House that most of us have known since we came into the House. It can hardly have been an act of inadvertence. I am not suggesting that the Home Secretary, as a sophisticated, legal master mind, set out with malice aforethought to deceive the House. That is not the character of the Home Secretary. In his case his reactions are of a rather slower moving and somewhat bovine type. Perhaps a certain amount of protective cunning was used on his part, but certainly not positive deception. But the effect is the same. The House was misled throughout these debates on what turned out to be two of the very vital issues of the whole subject.
Last Thursday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), put the question to the Home Secretary, I was perfectly sure that the Home Secretary would get up and tell us that he had been misled and that he was shocked by the decision to exclude the counsel of Enahoro's choosing. I thought that that was what he would tell us, but the whole House was aghast at his admission that he had known all along. It was equally amazed that with one breath he could refer to my hon. and learned Friend


as the Chief's counsel, as he did in these debates, and in the next breath tell us, as he did last Thursday, that he could not possibly guess whom Chief Enahoro would choose as his counsel. Whom did the Home Secretary think he would choose—the Attorney-General?
Let me tell the Home Secretary that I have today had a letter from Chief Enahoro's solicitors. I quote:
Enahoro's solicitors can state categorically he has never had any other counsel than Dingle Foot in mind and this is entirely borne out by the fact that on his first appearance in court in Lagos he refused to plead until 'my counsel, Dingle Foot, arrives'".
That is the assurance which we have had from Enahoro's solicitors and yet the Home Secretary could stand up last week and say that he had not the remotest idea whom he would choose. That he knew that it could not be my hon. and learned Friend or Mr. Gratiaen was one thing kept from the House.
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will argue, as he argued on Thursday, that the House knew what his little qualification meant when, on 21st March, he said:
They would not refuse him "—
Enahoro's chosen counsel—
entry unless in his particular case there were other and good reasons "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 603.1
What did the Home Secretary understand by "other and good reasons"? The only illustration given in the course of this matter was raised when the Lord Chief Justice mentioned smallpox. As my hon. and learned Friend, as far as we all know, is not suffering from smallpox, what other and good reasons has the Home Secretary in mind to justify the exclusion?
The whole House knows why my hon. and learned Friend was declared a prohibited immigrant. It was because, in the course of his professional duties, having, as he had repeatedly, represented N.C.N.C. personalities in Nigeria, last year he represented a member of the Action Group. It was for that reason, and that reason alone, that he was declared a prohibited immigrant, and I am extremely surprised that at no time did the Government make representation on behalf of a member of the British Bar being excluded on grounds of that kind.

This is certainly not a good and sufficient reason. It certainly does not fulfil the qualification made by the Home Secretary, even if we had understood what he was talking about. As I have said, learned judges themselves were at pains to ensure that an exclusion such as that applied in Mr. Gratiaen's case—that he was excluded on the ground and the only ground that he was to defend Chief Awolowo—would not be repeated in the case of Chief Enahoro.
The House, in recent years, has become very tolerant and easy-going on matters of the duties which Ministers owe to the House, perhaps too tolerant. We are used to seeing the House treated with contempt in a whole number of ways. But there is one action that the House cannot tolerate. It is the action of a Minister who, on a subject of great importance, so important that it has led to four major debates in the House, involving the Prime Minister himself as well as other right hon. Gentlemen, has deliberately withheld information material to the House's decision, so that the House had to take its decision on the basis of information so defective and so twisted in its form as to be totally misleading. When that is at stake, the House has no alternative but to demand the Minister's resignation.

7.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): After the attack which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has made on me, I hope that the House will do me the courtesy of listening while I go over the facts, the facts of this exceedingly difficult case, once again from the beginning.
Last year, in 1962, well before Chief Enahoro came to this country and was arrested, the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) was expelled from Nigeria. I have never wanted to dwell on that, but it received considerable publicity at the time and it is a fact which was publicly and widely known. Later Mr. Gratiaen, another barrister, was refused permission to land from England in Nigeria. Both these things happened before Chief Enahoro's case, which first came on at Bow Street in December of 1962.
The Bow Street magistrate found that there was a strong or probable presumption of his guilt—I am using the words of the Fugitive Offenders Act—on the charge of treasonable conspiracy brought against him, and the magistrate committed him to Brixton prison to await return to Nigeria. Enahoro then applied to the Divisional Court for a writ of habeas corpus and also for relief under Section 10 of the Fugitive Offenders Act. Section 10 authorises the court to stop someone from being returned to another Commonwealth country to stand his trial there, if the court thinks—here again I quote the words of the Act—that it would be
unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment
to send him back.
The Divisional Court, sitting under the Lord Chief Justice, dismissed both applications. In other words, the court held that it would not be unjust, it would not be oppressive, it would not be too severe a punishment, to send him to Nigeria to stand his trial. Before reaching that decision the court examined all aspects of the case presented to it on behalf of Chief Enahoro, and the words of the Lord Chief Justice's judgment show that the court paid particular attention to the question whether in the Nigerian courts Enahoro would be able to have an English barrister to defend him, if he wanted one; not a particular English barrister, but an English barrister at all.
There is no unqualified right of audience in the Nigerian courts, so I am informed, for counsel from overseas. The courts there, as the House knows, have a high reputation, and there are Nigerian barristers of great ability available to appear in them. A barrister from overseas wishing to appear in a Nigerian court must go to Nigeria and apply to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who himself is a member of the Privy Council, for a certificate authorising him to appear in that particular case. This is now the general rule in Nigeria. It was the rule before ever the question of Chief Enahoro's representation arose.
The Divisional Court in London was determined to be absolutely fair to Enahoro. It might have said that, as there were highly competent Nigerian counsel available in Nigeria, the question whether or not he could have a

barrister from England to defend him did not arise. But the court leaned over on behalf of Enahoro to assure itself completely that he would not be restricted to a Nigerian barrister if he wanted an English one, and that he could have a wide choice of barristers from England if he so wished. The court did not know what he might want. In fact, the Lord Chief Justice said in the course of his judgment:
I quite appreciate that this applicant may not want counsel from this country; it would be quite wrong do ask him whether he did".
But the Lord Chief Justice's judgment showed quite clearly, and so did the reports of the case published in the Press—because all this took place in open court—that the court was determined to find out what would happen if Enahoro asked for counsel from England to defend him in the Nigerian courts. Would the Nigerians say to whomever he asked for, "No, we are not going to let that man in, because we are not going to let anybody from England in who is coming to defend Enahoro"? Obviously that reason could be given over and over again, with the ultimate effect of excluding every English barrister.
On this point—it is the crucial one—the Divisional Court obtained an undertaking from the Nigerian authorities which satisfied the court. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has conveyed to the House that the court was satisfied partly as a result of the affidavit I had sworn. I think that the House should know that these proceedings before the Divisional Court to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring, and which he said were influenced by my affidavit, took place on 15th January, and my affidavit was sworn on 22nd April.

Mr. H. Wilson: We must at least get agreement on the facts here— [Laughter.]—this is no laughing matter, hon. Gentlemen cannot laugh this one off. The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance to the court and he made further inquiries in the course of his affidavit. He knows this perfectly well. He stated in the House, long before the date of the affidavit, on 21st March, that the Chief had found his assurance satisfactory.

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of it. The right hon. Gentleman has misled the House. The


undertaking which the Divisional Court—not I, but the Divisional Court—obtained from the Nigerian authorities was that if Enahoro chose a counsel from England who, according to the law of Nigeria, was entitled to appear in a Nigerian court, the Nigerian Government would not refuse that counsel permission. That undertaking was quite plainly not an unqualified undertaking to let in everybody, even somebody who was already persona non grata in Nigeria. But it was as wide an undertaking as any Government could be expected to give.
No Government which had already expelled a man, or refused to admit him to the country, would dream of giving a promise to let that man in purely because an accused person in its courts asked that man to come into the country and defend him. I am quite sure that no British immigration officer would admit that man, and no British Government would give an undertaking to admit him simply because an accused person asked for him— [HON. MEMBERS:" What were the questions all about?"] The Lord Chief Justice and his fellow judges, sitting in the Divisional Court, without any affidavit from me, accepted the Nigerian Government's undertaking as satisfactory. Having got that undertaking, giving Enahoro a wide choice of British or Nigerian counsel, they held that it would not be unjust and would not be oppressive if, on that basis, he went back to stand his trial in Nigeria.
Enahoro next petitioned the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords for leave to appeal against the Divisional Court's decision. This was on 6th February. The terms of the undertaking already given on behalf of the Nigerian Government were specifically brought to the notice of the Appeal Committee, and their Lordships questioned counsel for the Nigerian Government about it at some length, to make sure that there was no ambiguity.
Evidently they were satisfied with the explanation they received and regarded the undertaking as satisfactory, because they refused leave to appeal. In other words, they upheld the decision of the Divisional Court that it would not be unjust or oppressive for Enahoro to be sent back to Nigeria on these terms. It had become quite clear to me by then, and must have been equally clear to

anyone following the case even from the newspapers, that the Nigerian authorities were not intending to let into Nigeria to defend Chief Enahoro in court someone they had already expelled or refused to admit on those grounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."]

Mr. Dick Taverne: Can the Home Secretary explain what was meant by the Lord Chief Justice when he seemed to be assured that no oppressive action of the kind taken in Mr. Gratiaen's case when he appeared for Chief Awolowo would be repeated?

Mr. Brooke: The Lord Chief Justice is entitled to reach his own decisions in this matter, but what he was indicating, I understand, was that the courts might take a different view if a succession of British barristers came along and in each case the Nigerian Government said, "We will not let anyone in who is coming to defend Chief Enahoro." But the Divisional Court received an assurance that that would not happen and that no counsel would be excluded except on other good grounds.

Mr. R. T. Paget: In Chief Awolowo's case my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and Mr. Gratiaen had been excluded—one had been removed and one had been excluded—because they were defending Chief Awolowo. Lord Reid in another place was extremely concerned about that undertaking. He indicated his concern and he was eventually satisfied by counsel for the Nigerian Government. He said:
The Government of Nigeria have in effect said, ' We will not do that again.' If one is assuming good faith, they will not do it again.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, as I understand it, counsel for the Government of Nigeria said there was no intention of again excluding anybody simply because he was coming to defend someone in the Nigerian courts, but they reserved their right—they explicitly reserved their right—to exclude somebody for other and good reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "What reasons?"] This was accepted both by the Divisional Court and by the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords, competent bodies.
I was saying that it had become clear to me, and must have been equally


obvious to everybody, that this was the Nigerian authorities' intention. It was the obvious conclusion to which the whole form of the undertaking pointed. That meant to anybody who had been following the case that if Enahoro asked for the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich to represent him in the Nigerian courts the Nigerians were not going to rescind the expulsion order upon him nor let him in. That was clear to everybody from the day when the undertaking was given, which was 15th January. I noticed that even the Daily Mirror, which is hardly a pro-Government newspaper, this morning recognised that and made that very point.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman is telling the House that anyone who knew the history of this matter would have known that the Nigerian Government were not going to admit my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) for the reasons he gave. In that event, can the Home Secretary explain why, when the Nigerian Government told him in express terms that they were no: going to admit my hon. and learned Friend, they made it a question of confidence so as to prevent him telling the House what he says everyone knew already?

Mr. Brooke: I can certainly speak for myself and I shall speak for myself in the course of my speech, which I intend to carry through in an orderly way.
When the Nigerian authorities said in confidence to us on or about 9th March that they would admit any British barrister to represent Enahoro except Mr. Gratiaen or the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, they were only confirming what I was certain of already, from the proceedings that had taken place in open court. But the court and the Appeal Committee had both accepted that this was not the point on which the question turned whether or not it would be just for Enahoro to go back to stand his trial. There are many able barristers from England whom he could have had.
Provided that Enahoro had a free choice of counsel to represent him, whether British or Nigerian, other than those one or two who were already persona non grata in Nigeria for other reasons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] —the courts took the view that it would

be neither unjust nor oppressive for him to go back there to stand his trial, and so in the end did I. But, before reaching my decision, I had to take everything into account whether it had been before the court or not, and I did. I gave special consideration to a petition which Enahoro had sent in to me urging reasons for not sending him back to Nigeria.
I also set myself to make certain beyond all shadow of doubt exactly what the undertaking by the Nigerian authorities meant and that there was no trace of risk that he would be refused the services of all English barristers if he wanted an Englishman and not a Nigerian. [HON. MEMBERS: "All?"] That was the question which was the important one in the eyes of the courts and the courts are as well qualified as anyone to pronounce on a matter of justice. They clearly did not think it would be unjust if Enahoro was unable to get as his counsel one or two persons whom the Nigerians had already refused to have in their country. Their concern was to be assured that Enahoro could have either a Nigerian or a British barrister to represent him in the Nigerian courts, whichever he wished. This was the real issue and not a question of individuals.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Could the Home Secretary help us on one point? He has told the House that it was quite clear to him that these two gentleman would be excluded and that they were not to be included in the undertaking which was before the courts. Is he suggesting that the knowledge of that exclusion was also in the mind of the Divisional Court in January and of the House of Lords Appeal Committee in February?

Mr. Brooke: I am not suggesting that individuals were in the mind of the Divisional Court, but I am suggesting that both the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords knew exactly what the undertaking by the Nigerian authorities meant. I have now come to the point when the proceedings—

Mr. Eric Fletcher: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Brooke: I have now come to the point when the proceedings in the courts


were over but I had not reached my own decision. The case was no longer sub judice, because the Appeal Committee had refused leave to appeal. I did something to make assurance doubly sure, which every Home Secretary is fully entitled to do at that stage.
I want to apologise for a slip I think I made in answering a supplementary question last Thursday. I said that I had had no conversation with a judge, because I thought the right hon. Member for Huyton was referring to an allegation in a newspaper just before, that I had discussed with a judge whether I ought to reveal what I knew of the Nigerian Government's intentions about the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich. I never had any conversation of that sort at all with any judge, but I did—I want the House to know this and I want to correct that supplementary answer of mine—I did do, away back at the beginning of March, what Home Secretaries often have to do in carrying out their official duties. When the case was no longer sub judice, I consulted the Lord Chief Justice about what had taken place in court.
The consultation with him was solely on the nature of the undertaking which the court had been given. He satisfied me that what the court thought it meant and what I thought it meant was the same. It was the normal type of consultation which Home Secretaries have to have with judges, but we never discussed at all the question into which his name was brought in that newspaper report the other day.
Whatever the courts believed the undertaking to mean, I thought it essential that there should not be the slightest danger of misunderstanding between me and the Nigerian Government as to what it did mean. I therefore took the extra step of communicating through our High Commissioner in Lagos with the Federal Prime Minister of Nigeria. I set out what our courts had believed the undertaking to mean and what I believed it to mean, which was that if the Chief Justice of Nigeria gave his certificate for a named English barrister to appear for Enahoro the Nigerian Government would not refuse that barrister entry to Nigeria merely because he was going to represent Enahoro and that they would not refuse him entry unless in his particular case there were other and good reasons.
The Prime Minister of Nigeria replied that that was the meaning which the undertaking had and was intended to have. I told the House all about this in full. I described it in detail when I announced my decision on 14th March. I made it perfectly clear to the House that it was not an unqualified undertaking to admit anybody, but that it was an undertaking which both the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee had accepted as satisfactory.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised me the other day, although he got slightly confused about it today, for saying in my affidavit of 22nd April that the assurance I had had from the Nigerians was satisfactory. But it was exactly the same as the assurance which the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee had received, and which they regarded as satisfactory. Why was it wrong for me to swear an affidavit for the Divisional Court much later that an undertaking was satisfactory when the court itself had already held the undertaking to be satisfactory?
On a matter of proceedings in a court of law, why should I hold myself up to understand justice better than the judges? Why should I be "more royalist than the King"? I described the undertaking in detail to the House not once but twice. First on 14th March, and then again in the debate on 21st March. My words were perfectly clear. No one questioned me. It was quite obvious what my words meant, that the Nigerians retained the right to exclude anyone who was persona non grata on other grounds. No one challenged it. No one took up what I had said, except the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. He said that he was puzzled why I attached importance to the fact that a barrister from this country should be able to represent Enahoro.
I attached importance to it because the court had attached importance to it: to his being able to have either a Nigerian or a British barrister, as he chose. That is exactly what my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, speaking later in that same debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He did not spell it out in as great detail as I did, but it is absurd to allege that there had been some change in the position between my speech at 5 o'clock and his speech at


8 o'clock which led him to use different words from mine.
I had made a prepared opening speech. He was winding up and answering questions, and if there had been any intention of going back on my long statement, the Government would have said so, and if the Opposition thought that there had been any change in those three hours, why did they not ask?

Mr. John Morris: Did the Attorney-General know in fact that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) would be excluded, and when was he told?

Mr. Brooke: The communication was made on the date that I have mentioned, and, of course, it was known to the Government as a whole.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. George Brown: If it was in fact known to the Government as a whole, meaning also the Attorney-General, will the Home Secretary explain to us why the Attorney-General used these words:
The only interest of Her Majesty's Government in that was not in securing that a British Q.C. should represent him, but that they should be assured that he should have the counsel of his choice from all those qualified to appear. It was thought necessary to secure that to see that he would have the counsel of his choice." —[OFFICTAL REPORT, 21st March. 1963; Vol. 674. c. 678.]
"Qualified to appear", means, as the Home Secretary has explained, since the change of the law in Nigeria, a barrister who obtains the Chief Justice of Nigeria's certificate to appear.
The Attorney-General said they were concerned to see that he would have the counsel of his choice. If the Attorney-General then knew that if he chose my hon. and learned Friend he could not have him, why did he use those words?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. and learned Friend had been addressing himself to the question whether Enahoro would be allowed to have only a Nigerian counsel or a British counsel. [Interruption.] That was the point he had been dealing with. He then used the words that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, "They should be assured that he should have the counsel of his choice from all those qualified to appear". I quite agree that

he was not making a detailed statement going over all that I had said, but it is not unusual for those who are winding up a debate not to repeat in detail everything that has been said; that is taken for granted.
If the Opposition really imagined that there was some mysterious change of intention by the Nigerian authorities between 5 o'clock and 8 o'clock, why did they not ask at the time? No one from that day to this has ever suggested that my statement and the Nigerian Government's assurances were not perfectly clear.
The Opposition, instead, went full cry up the false trail of alleging that if Chief Enahoro were returned to Nigeria he would be put on trial for his life. It was their choice that they concentrated on that. They paid no attention at all to the other. They never challenged the Leader of the Liberal Party when he took the view that who would defend Enahoro was not the real point at all. That was the only comment made on my statement.
Now all the allegations against me that if I sent Enahoro back to Nigeria he would face a capital charge have proved baseless, too. He is being arraigned there before a single judge, and under Nigerian law a trial conducted by one judge sitting alone cannot end in a death sentence.
I have told the House, throughout, all the facts on which I based my decision in this case which has been perhaps as difficult a case as a Home Secretary could have to face. We have never had another case of a Commonwealth citizen charged with conspiracy to overthrow by violent means the lawfully constituted Government of his country, a partner country with us in the Commonwealth.
Chief Enahoro three times applied for habeas corpus and three times his application was rejected by the court, and three times he was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
The Lord Chief Justice in one of these later proceedings on 25th April said, after referring to my part in the matter:
Every possible step has been taken to see that it would be just that he should be sent back, and, if one may use the expression, every one seems to have leant over backwards in his favour.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me why I did not say that the Nigerians were not going to let in these two particular


barristers, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) interrupted and challenged me on that. I will give him the answer. First, because I was never asked. Secondly, because it was not my job, and would not have been very courteous, gratuitously to remind the House that the hon. and learned Member had been expelled from Nigeria.
Thirdly, the information was given in confidence and nobody but the Nigerians themselves could announce what Nigeria would do if particular persons sought admission to Nigeria. Fourthly, our courts had been satisfied that Enahoro's receiving justice in Nigeria would not depend on whether he had somebody who was previously expelled from Nigeria to defend him.
The thin basis for this Motion of censure—and it is transparently thin—is that I omitted to state what was in any case obvious without my stating it, in answer to a hypothetical question which I was never asked, on a matter which Her Majesty's judges had treated as not material to the real issue—the issue of justice. The Opposition are making a mountain out of a foothill.

8.1 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The Home Secretary's answer to this charge is no answer at all. The date of the affidavit referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is, as the Home Secretary knows full well. irrelevant to the argument that we are advancing from this side. The right hon. Gentleman's affidavit came at one stage in a succession of events which hang together and which form a coherent whole which makes it perfectly clear that the courts accepted assurances from the Nigerian Government which were of a different nature from what they believed them to be and that the Home Secretary knew all along that the courts were under a misapprehension as to the exact nature of those assurances.
From the very beginning of this affair, the Home Secretary has admitted that the right to have a counsel of his choice was vital to our consideration of whether Chief Enahoro would have a fair trial. It will not do for the Home Secretary to come along now and say that by "the counsel of his choice" what he and

the Attorney-General meant was a wide choice of counsel, or that he could have some counsel from England although not a particular one.
We have, all of us in this House, and so have the courts, time and time again concentrated on the definition of the words
the right to have a counsel of his choice".
The Home Secretary, realising the importance that both we and the courts attach to this, has gone out of his way to give assurances that would allay the very fears that have now been fulfilled.
The Home Secretary went out of his way to deal with this point in his statement to the House on 14th March. He went out of his way to deal with it before the Divisional Court on 25th April in his affidavit, when he repeated that he had obtained satisfactory assurances. He repeated it gratuitously when there was no need for him to have made that submission.
It will not do for the Home Secretary to try to put a new interpretation on the word "qualified" to appear before the Nigerian Bar. If anybody is qualified to appear before the Nigerian Bar, it is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), who, for the past eight years, has been going to Nigeria regularly as a member of the Nigerian Bar. No doubt whatever was cast upon his legal or personal qualifications during that period.
What has altered is not my hon. and learned Friend, but the law of Nigeria, which, a short while ago, altered the arrangements under which all counsel from this country wanting to appear before the Nigerian Bar must now obtain a certificate from the Chief Justice to appear in a particular case. That change in the law of Nigeria, however, in no way affects the qualifications, legal or personal, of my hon. and learned Friend to appear before the Nigerian Bar.
The Home Secretary's repeated and gratuitous references to the point about Chief Enahoro's right to have a counsel of his choice shows that he has accepted personal responsibility for getting this point clear in the minds of all of us. The Home Secretary tells us that he did not reveal that Chief Enahoro could have any counsel of his choice except the two counsel who were his and whom he


wanted to remain his counsel, because everybody knew that they would not go; he says that he was not asked the question specifically. The reason why he was not asked specifically was because he twice volunteered information to the effect that he had obtained assurances that would satisfy us all. That is why the Home Secretary was not questioned about the names of these two individuals.
Every one of us knew who were the counsel of Chief Enahoro's choice. Who else would they be? in answer to a Question of mine last week, the Home Secretary admitted that everybody knew them to be the counsel of Chief Enahoro's choice. If, therefore, he gave us repeated undertakings on this point, we would naturally assume that they covered those two gentlemen.
The importance of the fact that the Home Secretary's undertakings should cover those two gentlemen, the two counsel whom Chief Enahoro would obviously choose, was so great that there have been no less than six attempts during this affair to spelt out the assurances on this point. It was first raised in the Divisional Court on 15th January. It was again raised in the Appeal Committee on 6th February.
On 11th March, the Home Secretary went to the length of getting it spelt out to his own satisfaction to the Prime Minister of Nigeria. On 14th March, he came to the House of Commons and spelt it out again. On 21st March, in the debate in the House, he spelt it out again, and finally, in an affidavit before the Divisional Court on 25th April when the court was discussing a quite different point, he went out of his way to reintroduce the assurances and to lull any remaining suspicions which might have been in the minds of the court.
It is true that on 15th January and 6th February, it was rather their Lordships and the counsel of the Nigerian Government who were arguing the point, but on the remaining four occasions it was the Home Secretary in person who spelt out those assurances and took personal responsibility for them.
The Home Secretary says—he did so last Thursday—that from the outset he connected the form of the assurance with the publicly-known facts, namely, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

Ipswich had been told to leave Nigeria and that Mr. Gratiaen had been refused the right to enter the country to defend Chief Awolowo. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted it. This was the point at the back of everybody's mind. The Home Secretary said that from the outset he connected the form of the assurance with the publicly-known facts. So did we. We were connecting the form of his assurances, assuming that they covered these publicly-known facts. So did the judges. That is why both we and they were concerned at every stage to get an undertaking that would cover these two cases and ensure that they did not arise again.
It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to say that by this time everyone, including, presumably, the judges, knew about what had happened to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen and were writing them out of the picture. That argument will not stand the challenge of what, in fact, was said by the Lord Chief Justice in his judgment before the Divisional Court on 15th January.
I challenge this House to deny that there can be anything clearer than these words of the Lord Chief Justice:
Finally, and I confess this is the problem which I always thought was the point in this case at the very time that the application was first moved at the end of last term, is the point which concerns the refusal to allow Queen's Counsel to enter Nigeria.
Certainly, the Lord Chief Justice was clearly in that passage connecting assurances with the publicly known facts.
He continued:
Let me make two things clear. I quite appreciate that this Applicant may not want Counsel from this country; it would be quite wrong to ask him today whether he did. Equally, it seems to me that we are not concerned with what powers there were to prevent Queen's Counsel from landing under Section 13 of the Immigration Act, which powers the Immigration Officer purported to use.
That was in the case of Mr. Gratiaen.
The Lord Chief Justice continued:
What this Court is concerned to see is whether there is any danger if this Applicant is returned to Nigeria that he, if he desires a Counsel of his choice, will be refused that Counsel in the same terms as Chief Awolowo was, namely 'because you are coming to defend a particular person in a particular proceeding'. If I felt that there was a real danger of that, I should myself hesitate before refusing some form of relief to this Applicant".


In other words, if the Lord Chief Justice had known at that time that Mr. Gratiaen, at any rate, was ruled out, he would have hesitated. It cannot be clearer than that.
The Lord Chief Justice went on:
Mr. Hutchison"—
counsel for the Nigerian Government—
within a matter of hours of the point being raised, has obtained the Government of Nigeria's instructions and an undertaking that if this Applicant chooses a Counsel from England who according to the law in Nigeria, is entitled to appear in the Nigerian Courts—
and that covers both my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen, both of whom, according to law of Nigeria, are entitled to appear in the Nigerian courts—
the Executive will not refuse that Counsel permission to land merely because he is going to represent this Applicant".
It simply could not be clearer what were the anxieties in the mind of the Lord Chief Justice; just those two cases about which we have been arguing.
The Lord Chief Justice went on—and I do not apologise for repeating the quotation used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition earlier, because this is vital:
That being so, however oppressive the action appears to be—and I am not saying it was because we have not got the full facts—in depriving Chief Awolowo of his legal representation, I am quite satisfied that if this Applicant is returned there will be no oppressive action of that sort taken in his case.
In other words, the Lord Chief Justice asked Mr. Hutchison to get from the Nigerian Government an assurance to the effect that the kind of exclusion which took place in the case of Mr. Gratiaen would not be repeated. It was because he was satisfied that it would not be repeated that he decided that it would not be oppressive to send Chief Awolowo back.
So far, so good—or bad. But the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords, when an application to appeal by Chief Enahoro came before it, still had some nagging doubts in its mind because it knew of the treatment in these two previous cases. The Appeal Committee wanted to get it absolutely clear that, when an undertaking was given, a counsel from England would not be excluded merely because he would represent Chief

Enahoro—and that there would not be some other wangling done to keep him out.
Thus, the Appeal Committee wanted still further assurances. If hon. Members will study the proceedings of the Appeal Committee with care, as I have, they will see that it is perfectly clear that the judges were seeking assurances and that they were given them in a form which makes the action which has now been taken against my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen quite unwarranted.
Mr. Hutchison gave them this assurance:
There is absolutely nothing to prevent any counsel …if this Petition wishes him, to make the application in the proper way according to that Act, and the Chief Justice will consider it and give his certificate or not.
Lord Reid was not happy about that and said:
Yes, but then look at the last line of it. It is perfectly satisfactory up to the point when the Chief Justice gives authority for the counsel to represent the accused; but then all the undertaking is that the authorised counsel will not be refused on the ground merely that he is to take part in this trial. It it had been said that the authorised counsel would be permitted to enter once the authority had been given by the Chief Justice, that would have been wholly satisfactory. But how do we know that he will not be prevented from entry on some other ground altogether?
So Mr. Hutchison asked, in effect, "What kind of undertaking do you want and how do you want it worded?"
Lord Reid said:
If the Chief Justice authorises the appearance at this trial of some counsel, entry of that counsel into Nigeria will not be prohibited on any ground?
Mr. Hutchison said:
I do not think that I could give that undertaking, because all sorts of thing might happen … with smallpox.
That was the illustration he gave of the sort of reason why he could not give an absolutely categorical, out-and-out assurance. He said:
I am not wishing to be facetious. What I am saying is that there might be some ground which does not come into one's mind now …".
Could anything be more clearer than that? The fact that one ground might be that a year ago my hon. and learned Friend was declared persona non grata was in the Home Secretary's mind and has been all along. He says that it has


been in his mind and that it should have been in the minds of us all. It should have been the one thing we knew not to be covered, he says, but here is the counsel of the Nigerian Government saying:
… there might be some ground which does not come into one's mind now …
and that is smallpox.
It is important that I should read this, because it is very detailed and it is difficult for every hon. Member to follow all the details—although the Home Secretary has followed them all and he is basing his apologia to the House on the full knowledge of all these factors. Their Lordships were still so worried about this point that they went on with it:
Lord Morris: According to the Affidavit, the reason was that he had orders to refuse entry to any lawyer arriving from England in order to represent any accused person in connection with the trial of Chief Awolowo and others.
That refers to the reason for refusing entry to Mr. Gratiaen last year. Lord Morris asked Mr. Hutchinson:
Was your undertaking intended fully to meet that point? Mr. Hutchinson: That was, indeed, the purpose of it. The word 'merely' was inserted because there might well be reasons which, the court would appreciate, fell quite outside the question of the trial which would be all the normal reasons, if I could use that word, for a government to refuse entry to an individual …
Is it a normal reason for a Government to refuse entry to counsel merely that he wants to represent and defend a member of the Opposition party? That is the only reason— [An HON. MEMBER: "Persona non grata."] But why was my hon. and learned Friend declared persona non grata? The only reason ever given is that he had appeased in the Nigerian courts to defend a member of the Opposition party. No other reason has ever been given—

Mr. Niall MacDermot: The Home Secretary has twice referred to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) as if to suggest that there was something discreditable to him about the way in which he was excluded from Nigeria. Is it no': a fact that the only body to whom that was discreditable is the Nigerian Government?

Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree, and I hope to come to that point in a moment.
This is not a normal reason for refusing entry—this is a highly abnormal reason. Yet it was again stressed that it would be only a normal reason for refusing entry
… which does come into one's mind now …
That had to be provided for by allowing a little bit of latitude to the Nigerian Government.
Their Lordships, having had those two assurances, had, of course, to accept that the two cases about which they were anxious were covered and, indeed, Lord Reid once more made it perfectly clear. Referring again to the fact that Mr. Gratiaen had been refused entry on the ground that he wanted to defend Chief Awolowo, he repeated:
The Government of Nigeria have, in effect, said, 'We will not do that again'. If one is assuming good faith, they will not do it again.
It was on that ground that the right of appeal was denied to Chief Enahoro.
It is against that background that the Home Secretary comes into the picture—on 14th March. According to what he has told us, he had by then been in personal touch with the Prime Minister of Nigeria to get satisfactory assurances, and it must, according to what he tells us, have been on 11th March that the Government of Nigeria told him that the assurances given by Mr. Hutchinson on their behalf before the Appeal Committee and the Divisional Court were not quite what they seemed to be, because in no circumstances would they allow my hon. and learned Friend or Mr. Gratiaen to enter Nigeria.
Surely, the first duty of the Home Secretary, finding that the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee had been misled—in however good faith, with whatever good intentions—by counsel for the Nigerian Government, was to let the facts be fully known. If he was to give elementary justice to Chief Enahoro, was not that the least he could have done—or was he determined to get Chief Enahoro out of the country by hook or by crook? Perhaps it was at the diktat of other members of the Treasury Front Bench, but he has told the House time and time again


—it is his proudest boast—that he alone has taken the decisions in these cases; that he has full discretion, and will exercise it independently.
The fact is that the information he got from the Prime Minister of Nigeria on 11th March contradicted the assurances given by counsel for the Nigerian Government on the two previous occasions. What did the Home Secretary do? Did he reveal the truth? On the contrary, in his statement to the House on 14th March, knowing that these niggling doubts were still in people's minds, he said:
There is, however, one matter to which I thought it right to give particular attention. Before the Divisional Court"—
He then proceeded to refer to the proceedings before the Divisional Court in April and before the Appeal Committee in February, and went out of his way to say that he thought it so important that there should be do doubt that he had been in touch, through our High Commissioner in Lagos, with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nigeria, and said:
…and I am assured by the Prime Minister that the undertaking has, and was intended to have, the meaning I have stated." — [OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 1542–3.]
That is, the meaning that the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee thought it had. When the right hon. Gentleman knew that it had a very different meaning altogether from the one that had been deployed, on that ground alone he can be accused of whatever is the Parliamentary equivalent of duplicity. This is the stage at which he proceeded to say that there had to be other and good reasons for excluding the counsel of Chief Enahoro's choice—the other and good reasons having, as is already been pointed out, been clearly defined by the two courts.
Finally, we come to the Divisional Court's action on 20th April. It is at this point that the right hon. Gentleman's affidavit comes into the picture because, by then, the court was dealing with quite different aspects of the case, under a different Section of the Fugitive Offenders Act. Along comes the Home Secretary, submits an affidavit and, in the course of it, and knowing all this previous background, goes out of his way to say:

I considered that in the interests of the Applicant it was crucial that I should be left in no uncertainty about this. After an approach to the Nigerian Government through the British High Commissioner in Lagos I received on the 11th March an assurance of a satisfactory character from the Prime Minister of Nigeria.
That could normally have been meant to do only one thing—to remove any still remaining doubts in the minds of their Lordships about the freedom of Chief Enahoro, not to have a counsel from England, not to have a white counsel, but to have the counsel of his choice—because who can say that it is a satisfactory assurance if Chief Enahoro is told, "You can have this counsel, but you cannot have that one"?
The Home Secretary now says that he always knew that there were other reasons for excluding these two gentlemen. Let us look at these other reasons. They are not the normal ones referred to by Mr. Hutchison. They are not smallpox. In the case of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich, no other reason has ever been suggested except the fact that he had appeared in the Nigerian courts for the Action Party—the Opposition party. I repeat: never during all the years that my hon. and learned Friend has been going to Nigeria regularly has there ever been a slur on his character or on his legal ability.
I suggest to the House that it is a quite intolerable insult on the part of the Home Secretary to come along now and say, "Of course he could not go. He was persona non grata", as if he had leprosy or had been found out in some malpractice. What does it mean in the political situation of Nigeria to be persona non grata? It means merely to be exercising what would be a normal right in any other country, namely, to appear for the Opposition.
But even assuming for a moment that a counsel was once turned out of the country simply on the ground that he was defending somebody whom the ruling authorities did not like, and even if the Home Secretary thinks that that is good ground for turning him out—which I do not—does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is adequate ground for accepting automatically that he be excluded for ever more? Even if it were, how does the Home Secretary deal with the case of Mr. Gratiaen? He has never been declared persona non grata.
Here again, we owe it to Mr. Gratiaen to make it absolutely clear that not the slightest slur has ever been cast on either his character or his legal ability. Let us make it quite clear that he is a very distinguished lawyer indeed. He was formerly a Supreme Court judge in Ceylon, then Attorney-General in Ceylon, and then he came to this country and he has been practising since in many parts of the Commonwealth without any difficulty at all. Let us make it clear that when he went to Nigeria to represent Chief Awolowo, and was stopped by the immigration officer, it was made quite clear to him that there was nothing against him personally. It was simply that the Government had ruled that no English counsel would be allowed into Nigeria to defend Chief Awolowo.
Does the Home Secretary think that that is a good reason for excluding Mr. Gratiaen now? Does he think that that is covered by the "other and good reasons" phrase in which he pledged his good name to the House? Therefore, we have had from the Home Secretary's admission that he, the Government—the whole lot—always knew all along that these two gentlemen were excluded.
We cannot know with any certainty what the courts would have done if this information had been before them, but surely any objective and fair-minded Member of the House must know in the light of what I have read out that there is a very strong presumption, spelled out in the Lord Chief Justice's own words, that if they had known that these two gentlemen were out they would have thought it would have been oppressive to send Chief Enahoro back into that kind of political atmosphere.
We can say also that when the Home Secretary's affidavit was put before the Divisional Court on 25th April, and he said that he had received satisfactory assurances from the Prime Minister of Nigeria, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich, seeing our Attorney-General there, invited him to make known to the courts the exact terms of the assurance from the Nigerian Prime Minister. That invitation was never re sponded to, and at that time the Attorney-General knew that that assurance specifically excluded Mr. Gratiaen and my hon. and learned Friend.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I have myself no recollection of that point arising at any stage during the course of the proceedings. I did not appear in the first half of the proceedings, but I do not recollect that I was asked to say anything at all to any court in which I appeared about the matter of this undertaking. It was not relevant and did not arise during the course of the proceedings in which I appeared.

Mrs. Castle: It may be that the Attorney-General was not listening very well at that point. I have the assurance from a source I honour, and I intend to stand by it. I suggest that it was counsel for Chief Enahoro who gave the invitation. Perhaps the Attorney-General did not hear it, but, certainly, it was made and, certainly, he sat there knowing that the words "satisfactory assurances" excluded the two counsel who were most in everybody's minds. Furthermore, can we have any doubt what the feeling of the House would have been if we had known beforehand that these two counsel were ruled out?
We have spent a great deal of time, during the course of the case of Chief Enahoro, in asking whether we could trust the good faith of the Nigerian Government, and a number of hon. Members opposite have used as their reason for thinking that Chief Enahoro should be returned to Nigeria the fact that we had no right to throw doubts on the good faith of the Nigerian Government. The Nigerian Government were honest with the Home Secretary. They did not hide it. They told him. They are not to blame for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not pass the information. But should we not be applying a system of double standards if, at this moment, when we know that the Nigerian Government told the right hon. Gentleman the truth and we know that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell this House the truth, we did not now roundly condemn the right hon. Gentleman as being unworthy of the standards of honour of an Englishman?

8.38 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tulton Beamish: mean no disrespect whatsoever to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when I say that she added very little to the inaccurate and inadequate speech of the right hon.


Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to say here that I think it is showing considerable disrespect to leave the House after moving a Motion of censure when one speech only—after one's own—has been made. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be here to hear the whole of the debate.

Miss Alice Bacon: The Prime Minister is not here either to hear the speeches on the Motion of censure.

Sir T. Beamish: The Prime Minister did not move the Motion of censure. It makes it rather difficult in a short debate like this for hon. Members who wish to comment on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition if he is not in his place.
I take part in the debate with some reluctance. I should like by way of background to explain that when I had the great privilege of presenting a Mace to the Western Nigerian Government on behalf of this Parliament, Chief Enahoro was the able and friendly Home Secretary in that country. I developed a personal liking and respect for him, and it has, therefore, naturally saddened me greatly that these very grave charges have been brought against him. It is naturally my hope, which I am certain every hon. Member shares with me, that as these cases involving Chief Awolowo, Chief Enahoro and the other defendants develop these men will be found not guilty.
However, having said that, as I have not taken part in the earlier debates, I should like to say that I had no hesitation whotsoever in supporting by right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the Lobby on three occasions. Naturally, in one's mind the whole time was the feeling that it is absolutely essential—here we can all agree again that Chief Enahoro should be ably represented at his trial and that the trial itself should conform to the very highest standards of British justice. I had every reason to suppose that that would be the case, and I still have every reason for so supposing. I flatly disagree with the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn and the Leader of the Opposition in their statement that had the House of Commons known that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) would be barred from defending Chief Enahoro, we would have

reached a different decision. I do not believe for one moment that that is so. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but it would not have shaken my confidence one bit in the justice of returning Chief Enahoro to stand trial.
Secondly—and this again is a general point before I deal with more specific matters in relation to this so-called vote of censure—

Mr. MacDermot: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that he considers there was some good reason for excluding my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) from Nigeria?

Sir T. Beamish: I shall be touching on that point. As a matter of fact, it is not my business. This is precisely the point that I was coming to. This is a matter for a sovereign country, Nigeria. We can have views about it, of course. We may think the Nigerians made a mistake, but this is a matter for Nigeria and not for the British Government.
One of the things which have been most conspicuous to me during the course of these debates has been the astonishing lack of faith of the party opposite in the Nigerian Government. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to understand that one of the fundamental principles of the British Commonwealth is that there should be mutual respect between two sovereign countries within the Commonwealth. Some of them seem to think that although Nigeria is no longer run by Whitehall, it is run by Transport House. I detect a patronising attitude among hon. Members opposite, which I greatly regret. I believe it is true that the very friendly relations which we enjoy with Nigeria have been seriously strained by some of the grave misstatements made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite in the course of these debates. I very much regret that fact, and the sooner relations can be cemented again the happier I shall be.
I take it that it is not in question, therefore, that Nigeria has a sovereign right to declare the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich persona non grata. Whether the reasons of the Nigerian Government are good or bad, so far as this case is concerned, is irrelevant. I propose to show why in a moment.
I think, however, that it is worth asking this question. Bearing in mind the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman was declared persona non grata, was it remotely likely that a newly-independent country, justifiably very proud in its new status, would change a decision of this kind under pressure from its former Imperial masters? Does any hon. Member seriously think that under pressure from the party opposite this decision would be changed? I think the answer is clearly, "No".
Also we should clearly recognise that the defence of Chief Enahoro has not been prejudiced by reason of the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, with all his qualities as a barrister, which I recognise, is not able to go to defend him. As I understand it, there are 1,800 barristers in England and Wales from whom he can choose and a great many of them are men of very rare ability, who are fully capable of giving him the highest quality form of defence. Therefore, it is not true that his defence has been prejudiced. Therefore, I ask this question: why all the fuss?

Mr. Paget: rose—

Sir T. Bearish: With great respect, I should like to get on. There is not a great deal of time. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will probably find that I shall be covering his point.
The Leader of the Opposition, reading from a letter from Chief Enahoro's solicitors, quoted these words:
Enahoro never had any other counsel in mind"—
speaking of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich. This raises in my mind the question, did the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, knowing that he was to be the lawyer for the defence, ask whether, since it mattered so much, he would be allowed to enter Nigeria, being persona non grata? If he did not ask, why not? If he asked and got no answer, was not he suspicious that he might be refused entry? If he was told "No", why not tell the House?

Mr. Thorpe: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that the undertaking given by the Home Secretary would have permitted of any ambiguity so that there would be doubt in anyone's mind about whether he would be admitted?

Sir T. Beamish: I am simply saying that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Opposition attach such enormous importance to this question, considering that the hon. and learned Gentleman must defend Chief Enahoro if he is to be properly defended, why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, as the man who knew he was to be the lawyer for the defence, find out whether he would be permitted to enter the country? Why was not this argument used earlier by the Opposition? If they thought that it was a material point, why did they not bring it up at any stage during the debate? I find this difficult to understand.

Mr. Paget: rose—

Mr. Leslie Hale: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. There must not be three hon. Members on their feet at the same time. Does the hon. and gallant Member give way to anyone?

Sir T. Beamish: I would rather not give way, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because the debate is to be a short one.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order, if the hon. and gallant Member has given way, for the Chair to rise and advise him not to give way?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member had not given way.

Mr. Hale: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Have not the last five minutes of this discussion dealing with Chief Enahoro and what was said or not said in previous debates been quite irrelevant to the question why the right hon. Gentleman deliberately deceived the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have heard nothing irrelevant.

Sir T. Beamish: I am sorry that these facts should be so unpalatable to the party opposite. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have made a lot of misstatements during the course of our various debates, and I see no reason why they should not be answered.

Mr. George Lawson: Why ask questions and then not give way?

Sir T. Beamish: I am asking questions for the simple purpose of giving an opportunity for them to be answered during the debate. This is not Question Time. I wish it were. I should be very happy to answer a few questions.
When the Home Secretary made his very carefully worded statement on 14th March, including the words that entry would not be refused to any barrister
unless in his particular case there were other and good reasons …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March. 1963; Vol. 673, c. 1542.]
I fully understood from this that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen were likely to be refused entry, if not certain to be refused entry. That was my immediate reaction on hearing those words; otherwise, it seemed to me that they meant just about nothing. I thought that the words used were very simple and that anyone who could understand plain English, without reading between the lines, must have known what they clearly implied.

Mr. Percy Collick: Deliberate deception.

Sir T. Beamish: The Home Secretary himself, thinking that the Nigerian Government might be unlikely to be prepared to accept the hon. and learned Gentlman and Mr. Gratiaen, asked whether this was so, in order to confirm it, and he was told, as he has said in the House, in confidence—those words were not mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition—that any lawyer from this country would be permitted to go to Nigeria except the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich or Mr. Gratiaen.

Mr. Colfick: Why did he not tell the House?

Sir T. Bearnish: I assume that he did not tell the House because he was told in confidence, and I take it that he thought that that meant that he was not to divulge the information which he was given. I assume that that is what "in confidence" means.
Why were the Opposition silent, if they were so concerned about this matter? Why did they not ask for a specific assurance, if they thought that it mattered so

much that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be permitted to go to Nigeria to defend Chief Enahoro? Was it because the Opposition were naive? I do not think so. Was it that they were being stupid? I do not think so. Was it that they were being rather cunning? I think that that may be the answer. Did they want to keep the whole thing up their sleeve so that they could make another personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary behind a smoke-screen of synthetic moral indignation?
Was it because after weeks of discussing a Budget which they could not fail to admire they needed a new stick with which to beat the Government, and they kept this stick up their sleeves ready to whip it out when the opportunity arose, protesting all the time that they had been deceived? But the stick was a rotten one, and the blow aimed at my right hon. Friend has missed him, and the Opposition have simply hit themselves on the shins.
If the Opposition have been deceived, they have been guilty of serious self-deception. Nobody has deceived them. least of all my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He is widely recognised as one of the most honourable and candid men who have been in politics for many a year. I frankly do not believe that any Member of the House in his heart of hearts believes him to be otherwise. I say again that on this matter my right hon. Friend has deceived absolutely nobody. If the Opposition feel they have been deceived, they have deceived themselves.
It is quite possible to argue that my right hon. Friend could be criticised for a certain lack of clarity and firmness at the earlier stages of this affair, though I think that it would be a difficult charge to sustain. I think that many people would be more likely to share my view that such an important and complex matter as this had to have the very fullest and most thorough consideration, on both the political and legal sides. The decision my right hon. Friend had to reach had to be reached with humanity as well as with full knowledge of all the problems involved. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has suffered considerable agony of mind during the whole of this unhappy business.
It is quite possible to argue what I have just stated, but it is quite impossible, in my opinion, to argue, without one's tongue firmly in one's party political cheek, that the Home Secretary has been builty of bad faith, of which he was accused by the Leader of the Opposition, that he has been guilty of dishonest behaviour, of which he has also been accused, that he has done something discreditable, of which he was also accused by the Leader of the Opposition, or that he deliberately concealed vital facts, as was suggested by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn. None of these things can possibly be sustained. I believe them all to be totally untrue.
Why, then, does the Motion of censure against my right hon. Friend stand on the Order Paper? I believe that it is the Opposition who should be facing such a Motion of censure for their lack of judgment in this matter. They should be facing a Motion of censure themselves for trying to make cheap party capital out of a thoroughly unhappy issue. They should be facing a Motion of censure themselves for trying to make party capital out of something which should have nothing whatsoever to do with party politics. They should be facing a Motion of censure also for trying for party ends to blacken the character of a thoroughly honourable man.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, without for a moment questioning your wisdom in permitting this debate to range over a wide field, permitting submit that we have gone some distance from the question before the House, which is whether the Home Secretary is deserving of confidence after having deliberately deceived the House
To that, the Home Secretary from time to time has pleaded guilty. Indeed, it was an astonishing thing that in the course of tonight's debate the Home Secretary made a quite casual reference —an offhand reference—to the fact that he thinks that he did make a mistake in the last period of questioning on 23rd May.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked this question:
Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any conversations between himself and a learned judge and, if

there have. may we have a full report on them?
The Home Secretary answered in this way:
No, Sir. I know of no such conversations." — [OFFICIAL. REPORT, 23rd May, 1963; Vol. 678, c. 634.]
Now the Home Secretary says that he thought he was referring to a very special type of conversation when he said—
I know of no such conversations.
There must be a point at which one is entitled to question whether the right hon. Gentleman is taking an attitude in face of these charges of the type which is normally put forward by an unintelligent criminal in mitigation of a charge, "I did not really mean it. These words do not have that sort of meaning. I had not got this in mind. I had not got that in mind."
But, basically, we are discussing tonight what we are now to apply to the House of Commons, which has normally managed to live fairly happily together, in which a Member's word is accepted, in which a Member's statement is accepted, in which normally—I say in my own experience, whether of a Tory or a Labour Minister, for I have only had those two sorts of Ministers to deal with—it a Minister makes me a promise I always accept it. Until a few months ago that had always been so. I have always regarded a conversation or an engagement in this House as meaning an undertaking had been given.
But this, of course, is the classic theory of Machiavelli: the bigger you are the more right you have to deceive; if you can get away with it, it is a measure of success; if it is essential to one's well-being or to the well-being of the Government of the State, one is justified in doing it.
In my right hon. Friend's very brilliant speech today there was one point which, I think, he did not make. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) did. I want to repeat it in just another form. Everyone will understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has had a rather rough passage during the course of the last few months on this matter. No one would be very much surprised if, in the course of an excited controversial comment, a statement had slipped through which


had got, perhaps, a misleading adjective, or a misleading connotation; but there are two quotations my right hon. Friend particularly referred to today as of 21st March, and he carefully referred to them, and they were quotations of a precise restatement of the words which the right hon. Gentleman had used on 14th March.
On 14th March the right hon. Gentleman was not coming to take part in debate; he was reading a formal written statement prepared in his Department, reading it carefully at that Box, and saying, "This is the statement which I ask the leave of the House to make." He went further, because having given the undertaking which has been stated so often I shall not repeat it, he then added this:
I thought it essential to ensure that there should be no misunderstanding between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Nigerian Government with regard to the meaning of the undertaking given on that Government's instructions.
The right hon. Gentleman thought it essential that there should be no misunderstanding. He then said:
I have, therefore, been in touch through our High Commissioner in Lagos …" — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 1543.]
The right hon. Gentleman knows the High Commissioner of Lagos well, and they should both be acquainted with Parliamentary procedure. The High Commissioner in Lagos knew that he was now obtaining an undertaking which had got to be given to the House of Commons.
The right hon. Gentleman says quite vaguely—he has never elaborated a single word of this—"I was told something in confidence." Who by? By the High Commissioner in Lagos? It was stated by the Home Secretary to the Attorney-General in confidence—or rather to all the other members of the Government in confidence—and it could not be mentioned to the House?

Mr. Thorpe: It would have been discourteous to have done so.

Mr. Hale: It would have been discourteous to have mentioned anyone by name.
I appreciate that it is getting late. If my right hon. Friend the Member for

Belper (Mr. G. Brown) gives me the slightest indication of what time he desires to rise I will make way, for I should not like for a mement to trespass on his time. I should, however, like to say this. It may seem irrelevant, but two years ago a very distinguished member of the Bar was brought before the Bar Council on a grave charge and he was temporarily disbarred or suspended— [Interruption.] What time?

Sir Frank Soskice: Twenty minutes past nine.

Mr. Hale: However irregularly it may seem to have been done, this interruption was for the convience of the House, and because of my desire not to intrude upon my right hon. Friend's time.
A very distinguished member of the Bar—Mr. Victor Durand—was brought before the Bar Council on what it obviously regarded as a serious charge. What Mr. Durand had done was to address an officer as "Inspector" when he knew that he had been reduced to sergeant. I do not want to mislead hon. Members who do not recollect the facts. The offence was much more serious than that. It was said that he had done this fraudulently to deceive, because the honesty of this officer was relevant to the whole facts before the jury, and that by using this simple device he had concealed from the jury the fact that the officer had been tried for an offence of dishonesty and reduced in rank. He therefore managed to convey a false impression.

Mr. MacDermot: He called him "Mister".

Mr. Hale: Did he? Well, call me "Madam".
But Mr. Durand went further. It was said that in the course of conference with his solicitors they said that he should not have done it, and his attention was called to the fact that it was undesirable to do that. Mr. Durand—this counsel of great distinction and eminence—was suspended from practice for two years. That was a very severe sentence, and very nearly a sentence of deprivation and financial ruin.
On what charge? On a charge that is well understood. On a charge that is well known. On a charge of one of two forms of fraud. The law knows only two, either as tort or as fraud—suggestio falsi


suppressio veri—the deliberate distortion of the facts to convey a false impression, or the deliberate concealment of some material for the same end.
When the Home Secretary read out his prepared statement, and when he knew that he had been told relevant facts, which had to be kept in confidence, is he saying that the Nigerian Government did not want the situation made crystal clear? Does he really say that?
I have no gift for denunciation. I do not want to overpaint the picture. I take the view that the only person one is entitled to criticise on moral grounds is oneself—and there I find ample scope for that exercise. This is not a question of criticising the Home Secretary, against whom I have no venom or bitterness. This is a question of the life of the House of Commons. When I read this statement through, in the light of what has since transpired, I turned, as did my right hon. Friend, to the statement of the Attorney-General, and I read it through again.
It was apparently a clear and unequivocal statement. But once one has got into this suspicion of mind and realises that this sort of thing can happen in the House of Commons one reads the statement through again, and reads:
It is entirely a matter for him to choose by whom he prefers to be represented
and then,
For that reason alone, the Home Secretary thought it necessary to clarify that matter.
Then one thinks to oneself that the Attorney-General could not have said this unless he was misled by the Home Secretary, and then that the Home Secretary could not have concealed this undertaking from the Attorney-General, and one wonders whether there is any little quibble in it which might have been put through with the deliberate intent to deceive. What was said, again:
It was thought necessary to secure that to see that he would have the counsel of his choice. Her Majesty's Government had no interest at all in seeing whether he had a Nigerian or a British counsel. It is entirely a matter for him to choose by whom he prefers to be represented." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2Ist March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 678.]
There is the qualification, contained in words
from all those qualified.
It is no defence to a charge that something was done with intention to mislead

to say that certain words, in one of their meanings, could convey a different impression.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked whether any hon. Members really now challenged the fact that they understood the words in the way they were understood by the courts, by this House, by the Press and by Chief Enahoro himself. No one has done so.
When I think of my happy association with the Attorney-General on the Royal Commission on the Police, and of the respect and affection I have for him, I find it difficult to reach a conclusion either way. It is very difficult, however, not to think that these words could have been included only after some thought and realisation that they were equivocal and that they would involve some measure of deceit.
I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a precedent for this, set by another Attorney-General, This was when Sir Rufus Isaacs got up and said, "I declare unequivocally that, so far as the company is concerned, whether they were 14s. or £9, never owned one share". That statement was true, because Sir Rufus Isaacs was referring to the British Marconi Company. But he did not go on to add that he had bought many thousands of shares from his brother in the American Marconi Company.
A Select Committee and years of scandal followed that piece of deceit. Sir Rufus was a distinguished man and a great tribune, but his character never recovered from that statement. No doubt it was made with lack of judgment. No doubt he meant to repair his words before the Select Committee. But the statement was on record.
Thinking this over, I had a feeling that somewhere there was a classic example of this sort of thing and of the harm it may do. I recalled the case of Saccho and Vanzetti. The prosecution was trying to secure a conviction against these two men who, by force of character, had impressed many people with their innocence, although there was undoubtedly considerable evidence against them.
There was the ballistics expert who was commander of the local police. He said, "I cannot swear that this bullet came


from Saccho's revolver". So they evolved a simple formula. He went into the witness box and said that the bullet was consistent with having come from Saccho's revolver. He was known as a fairly honest "cop", and because that simple statement was made no one questioned it, no one cross-examined him about it. Defence counsel thought that questions might strengthen the witness. Years later, when this man lay dying, the matter was on his conscience. He made a revelation of the whole of the facts. But that did not save Saccho and Vanzetti. They had gone to the electric chair on that evidence.
There is a danger in the case that we are now considering. There is, I think, a danger that sometimes we are departing from the standards of honesty and sincerity that were operating in this country fifty years ago. I cannot believe, although I dislike saying it, that, on the evidence, there has not been a clear determination by the Home Secretary to conceal relevant facts in the case of Chief Enahoro with the intention of deceiving this House, and that he is not guilty as charged by the Motion of censure.

9.9 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Unlike the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I shall not suggest by innuendo that there was anything deliberate if the House was misled by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I consider that I was misled, but I certainly exonerate my right hon. Friend from any intention deliberately to mislead me.
There is one aspect of this case of which we have tended to lose sight, not only in this but in previous debates on Chief Enahoro. Our main object has been to ensure not only that justice was done to an individual, in so far as we had control of that justice, but also that it was seen to be done and that its doing did not cause any unnecessary dispute between another member of the Commonwealth and ourselves.
But that was looking at the matter purely from our own point of view in this country and in this House. Let us for a moment consider it from the point of view of the Nigerian Government As my right hon. Friend said, the charges upon which Chief Enahoro was due to appear in

Nigeria were very grave and affected the safety of that State. Indeed, if the charges laid against Chief Awolowo and Chief Enahoro and 30 others were proved, we might find from the evidence produced that from the Western Region of Nigeria there spread a wild fire of conflagration which might eventually have led to the complete destruction of the Federation. It is conceivable, and one can well understand the Nigerian Government have a rather different attitude from ours.
I have felt it my duty to be satisfied on two points. First, I wanted to be absolutely satisfied not only that the court in Nigeria was impeccable in its conduct—and I have no doubt at all about that and I am certain that the reputation of the Nigerian judiciary is impeccable—but, secondly, that the evidence which would be brought before that court would have been properly obtained, and that evidence would not be deliberately withheld from that court by means which would not be tolerable in a civilised State. About the latter I am not satisfied. It was for that reason above all that I abstained in the only two Divisions which we have had on this issue.
This debate has been directed by the Opposition as a personal attack upon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and yet, even while the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, an attempt was being made to spread it to the Attorney-General. That attempt has been repeated by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).
Any attempt to place upon my right hon. Friend sole responsibility for all this is totally misdirected. It is perfectly true that he has very honourably tried to take sole responsibility for this decision the whole way through. That speaks all the tribute necessary to the very high reputation which he has and to the very high tradition which his office has. He has always been a very courageous man. He has always stuck absolutely firmly to his decision once he has made up his mind, and we all know that he takes great pains about making up his mind.
I would say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that before we castigate one individual member of Her Majesty's Government too much, we might ponder for a moment or two what


burden of responsibility my right hon. Friend has had to bear. He himself indicated some of the strain which this must have been upon him, and I do not under-estimate its measure.
However, I ask my right hon. Friend one question. I ask it having studied only the Press reports of what happened in the courts, particularly in January when Enahoro was before the Divisional Court. My right hon. Friend has told us today for the first time that, some time in April, he did consult the Lord Chief Justice and obtained from the Lord Chief Justice an assurance that his understanding in the court had been the same of my right hon. Friend's understanding of the assurance which had been given by the Nigerian Government. My reading of that assurance—having studied what was said in the courts as well as what was said in the debates in this House—was that although the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and Mr. Gratiaen had been, the one expelled and the other refused entry into Nigeria in respect of other actions, from that moment onwards, after the assurance was given in the case of Enahoro, both these reservations had been removed.
I am no lawyer, and it may be perfectly clear from the speech I am now making that I am not, but neither is the vast majority of the hon. Members of this House. Neither are all our constituents. I think that most people in this country—I put it no stronger than that—as a result of what was said about the assurance coming from the Nigerian Government, came to the conclusion that it meant that Chief Enahoro could have any British counsel to defend him that he liked. I do not think this is a matter in which we ought to play with words. I think that we ought to be quite clear about what we all thought at the time. I am saying only what I thought. My belief is that many other people thought it too. It was certainly what I thought at the time.
What I find quite impossible to understand—this is the question which I wish to put to my right hon. Friend—is why when at one moment it could be argued that everybody knew—especially, apparently, the courts knew and the Government knew—that in fact the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen would be debarred, should

they attempt to go to Nigeria to defend Chief Enahoro, the Nigerian Government apparently swore Her Majesty's Government to secrecy over this matter. I find this quite impossible to understand.
I have listened most carefully to every speech and every word which has been said in this debate. I have still heard no answer on this particular issue. I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to put us right on this. I feel that if in fact the impression was given—I have no doubt at all that it was given to many people; it was certainly given to me—that Chief Enahoro was to have whom he liked, and that in fact the public knowledge of the expelling of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich and the barring of Mr. Gratiaen from Nigeria was no longer relevant, why on earth all the secrecy? We really must be clear on this.
1 know that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) wishes to speak at twenty minutes past nine, and so I will sit down; hut, in conclusion I wish to say that I do not blame the Home Secretary for this misunderstanding. I regard it as a collective Government decision. Because of this I think that this Motion of censure is totally misdirected. It is not fair on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to pin the responsibility on him.
This is a collective responsibility of the whole Government. For that reason, I must say that I cannot possibly support the Motion of censure. But I must also say that, having abstained in the two previous Divisions, I feel that now I could not possibly support the Government in the Division Lobby tonight, for the very good reason that I feel that I have not entirely agreed with their policy about Chief Enahoro from the very beginning—for reasons which I hope they will respect as I respect their reasons for not agreeing with me.
Therefore, I feel that all I can do again tonight, grievous though it be to me, is to abstain.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I think that the whole House will respect the sincerity, the force and power of the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). The part in which he thought it wrong of us to censure the


Minister who has to carry the responsibility I confess I did not quite understand. In the light of what he said subsequently, I was not sure whether he thought that we should censure the entire Government or the one man who has to carry personal responsibility. That point apart, speaking for myself, and not for the first time, I respect tremendously the sincerity of the hon. Member.
I am sure that other hon. Members, like myself, have noticed the ironic fact that today, the day when we discuss one more episode in the case of Chief Enahoro, is the anniversary of the passing in 1647 of the Habeas Corpus Act. The Government ought to think a little about what they are doing throughout this whole procedure in relation to that honourable, traditional and proud Act of our ancestors a long time ago. I am sure that they must have in mind now what a grim road they have trodden since they first started interfering with and perverting the ordinary course of justice for purely political reasons. They have been led on— [An HON. MEMBER: "Come off it."] I have listened in silence to everyone else who has spoken. If I am not accorded the same courtesy, the Prime Minister will have to share the reduction of time.
The Government, step by step, have been interfering with what ought to happen. They have now reached a position where the Home Secertary, as everyone must have felt in the House this afternoon, was on the thinnest possible ground. This is not another debate about Chief Enahoro. That unhappy man, in prison because of yet another misunderstanding in the Home Office, is merely the vehicle which has led our Administration to get themselves into trouble and into difficulty with the traditions of our land. We are censuring Ministers today. We are censuring the Minister who has to carry the personal responsibility.
We are censuring the Home Secretary, and, through him, his colleagues, for their attitude towards the courts of justice of this land and towards the High Court of Parliament. The Home Secretary ended his speech by saying that he thought we were making a mountain out of a foothill. That made

me feel once again how little touch he has for, how little feeling he has for, the traditions of this House. He has given four reasons for his view, four reasons why it was a mountain made out of a foothill to censure him for withholding from this House and the courts of justice information which was relevant to the decision which we have to make.
The first was that he had not been specifically asked. Is this now the Conservative definition of a Minister's—or, indeed, any honourable man's—duty to tell what he is asked only when he is asked it, to suppress everything else that is relevant until he is asked it? As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said, that would certainly have let out those involved in the Marconi scandal, but I do not remember the Conservative Party accepting that.
Why was the Home Secretary not asked? Here the Attorney-General has to come in. It may be that the Minister who winds up a debate, as the Home Secretary said, does not repeat all that the opener of the debate says, but the one who answers the debate answers the questions which have been raised in it. The Attorney-General said, "The point has been raised" and went on in categorical terms—not qualified as the Home Secretary said we were supposed to understand, but in categorical terms—to say that Chief Enahoro should have the counsel of his choice. There was no qualification there at all.
We still want to know—perhaps the Prime Minister will try his hand at this—the answer to this question: did the Attorney-General know when he told us that the Home Secretary's understanding was that the undertaking excluded the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and Mr. Gratiaen? If the Attorney-General knew, then he was deliberately deceiving; if he did not know, then the Home Secretary was not even telling his colleagues, let alone anybody else.
The second reason that the Home Secretary gave was that it would have been discourteous to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich. What did he mean by that? My hon. and learned Friend was not excluded from Nigeria for any shameful reason. What did the Home Secretary intend to convey? My hon. and learned Friend


was excluded for one reason only, that he had gone to Nigeria to defend Chief Awolowo. Therefore, his exclusion on that ground was wholly relevant to the argument as to whether he would be excluded on this ground.
Why would it have been discourteous? On the contrary, it would have been absolutely relevant. Indeed, the immigration officer who stopped Mr. Gratiaen from entering actually said that he was forbidden to allow any counsel to enter from London to represent Chief Awolowo or any of the accused—remember that this was the same trial—and that there was nothing personal, Why did not the Home Secretary make it clear that the undertaking meant that this was to apply in the case of Chief Enahoro as in the case of the other accused?
The Home Secretary's ground was that he had the information on a confidential basis. I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely that this is the most extraordinary thing of all. How can the Nigerians pledge to secrecy in this House our own Government when we are debating this matter? I can well understand the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations bending over backwards, and I understand why. But it is time that Lagos was told that this House, this ancient people here, have their democratic rights, too. They cannot pledge our Government to secrecy on an issue which is wholly relevant to a decision that we have to take in defence of traditions that are centuries old. But I am not at all sure whether the Home Secretary meant it when he said it, because all the way through he kept on saying that everybody knew. If everybody knew, what was so confidential about it as to stop him saying it? Never has a man tried to defend himself on every count at once.
I am a layman, too, but I am extremely interested in our legal processes. We heard this extraordinary story of the conference, which the right hon. Gentleman forgot until today, which took place between him and the Lord Chief Justice. We ask what was the consultation about. Who sought it? The undertaking written in the Divisional Court was, as we know from subsequent proceedings, an undertaking drafted by the Lord Chief Justice himself—although the courts do not say "drafted"; their expression is "words

which fell from the Lord Chief Justice's lips".
We know that that undertaking was the Lord Chief Justice's. Did he ask the Home Secretary to come to see him to find out whether the Home Secretary clearly understood what he intended by this undertaking, or did the Home Secretary go to the Lord Chief Justice to ask him what the undertaking meant? If the latter, did the Home Secretary tell the Lord Chief Justice that he understood from the Nigerian Government that the undertaking did not cover my hon. and learned Friend and Mr. Gratiaen? Did he tell the Lord Chief Justice?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Brown: We shall listen with great interest to the Prime Minister to hear whether that was what the Home Secretary did.
If one looks at the extract, one understands what the Lord Chief Justice was worried about. He was specifically worried about the fact that counsel had been excluded from the previous stages of the trial and he was suggesting an undertaking to prevent the same thing happening again. Did the Home Secretary make the Lord Chief Justice privy to the fact that he had a confidential understanding that the undertaking did not cover them? I will return to this presently.
I turn, meanwhile, to the Home Secretary's fourth point. He said that the courts had decided this issue, so he had no need to tell the House of Commons. How did the courts decide it? They decided it, first, in the absence of this very information. They decided it, secondly, when told in the affidavit something that seemed to be quite different, and they decided, thirdly, only after the most specific undertaking appeared to have been wrung out of the Nigerian Government's Attorney-General.
I commend to any right hon. and hon. Members who are voting tonight a study of the proceedings before the Appeal Committee of another place. I wish that I could read it all. It is the most telling. destructive document of all that the Home Secretary said to us this evening. I will begin at the part where counsel for the Nigerian Government is answering


a question about what counsel Chief Enahoro will be allowed. He says:
There is absolutely nothing to prevent any counsel, if this petitioner wishes him, to make the application in the proper way according to that Act, and the Chief Justice will consider it and give his certificate or not.
LORD REID: Yes, but then look at the last line of it. It is perfectly satisfactory up to the point when the Chief Justice gives authority for the counsel to represent the accused; but then all the undertaking is that the authorised counsel will not be refused on the ground merely that he is to take part in this trial. If it had been said that the authorised counsel would be permitted to enter once the authority had been given by the Chief Justice, that would have been wholly satisfactory. But how do we know he will not be prevented from entry on some other ground altogether?
MR. HUTCHINSON:… These words were suggested and agreed to in the hearing before the Divisional Court.
He was speaking for the Nigerian Government.
I was perfectly prepared to use any words which were agreed by my learned friend"—
that is, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich—
and which the Lord Chief Justice thought were proper.
LORD REID: May I take it that the substance of the undertaking is that, if the Chief Justice authorises the appearance at this trial of some counsel"—
not an English or a Nigerian counsel, which was the point the Home Secretary tried to take this afternoon—
entry of that counsel into Nigeria will not be prohibited on any ground?
MR. HUTCHINSON: I do not think I could give that undertaking, because all sorts of things might happen between the Chief Justice giving his certificate and the person arriving, as the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, with smallpox.
…What I am saying is that there might be some ground which does not come into one's mind now whereby the counsel…
The date is 6th February. We were told this afternoon that the Home Secretary knew it in January. On 6th February counsel for the Nigerian Government said:
…there might be some ground which does not come into one's mind now …
As if that were not all, what do we find at the very end of the passage from which I am quoting? The whole document is worth reading if one really wants to see how we are being misled, even today. We find that Lord Morris

said that, according to the affidavit, the reason was that he, the immigration officer in the case of Mr. Gratiaen, had
…orders ' to refuse entry to any lawyer arriving from England in order to represent any accused person'"… —
including Chief Enahoro—
'in connection with the trial of Chief Awolowo and others.' Was your undertaking intended fully to meet that point?
We find the answer from Mr. Hutchinson to be:
That was indeed the purpose of it. The word ' merely 'was inserted because there might well be reasons which, the court would appreciate, fell quite outside the question of the trial which would be all the normal reasons, if I could use that word, for a Government to refuse entry to an individual which they must keep to themselves but in relation to this trial made it abundantly clear that no such counsel would be refused.
I ask any hon. and right hon. Members opposite who heard the Home Secretary's speech this afternoon to square his speech with the statement I have just read and which was made in the court.
We were not only misled before today. The Home Secretary was misleading us this afternoon. The counsel I have quoted was the counsel for the Nigerian Government—and he did not say any of the things which the Home Secretary trumped up this afternoon. All this makes absolute nonsense of the Home Secretary's assertion that the court was interested only in whether it was an English or a Nigerian barrister and that it was not interested in whether it was a particular barrister.
It is perfectly clear that Lord Reid was trying to make sure that the position of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen was covered by the undertaking which the Lord Chief Justice had drafted. The whole history of this thing, from the day the man arrived thinking that he had assurances which were subsequently dishonoured, the objection to bail— [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Yes, and the Home Secretary's statements in the House about bail; the whole way in which the final appeal was rushed through, the Home Secretary's power in that; the final stages of his being refused permission to see his solicitor on the evening when we were finally debating it in the House; his being refused a clean shirt when one was offered to him at the gates, after the Home Office


had been consulted, to his finally being taken away in handcuffs—the whole wretched, grim story has reeked of deception and the misleading of the House right the way through.
The Attorney-General and his telephone call must be considered. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it was his Government who brought in the Act which gave Nigeria her Constitution; that the Nigerian Constitution is part of British law; that in the Nigerian Constitution the Attorney-General does not decide what charges are laid; that the Director of Public Prosecutions is specifically excluded from any pressure from the Attorney-General; that the telephone conversation, as I suggested at the time, was as irrelevant to what we were discussing as was all the rest of the misleading nonsense we have heard.
I ask the House to join with us, either in censuring the Minister, or, if some hon. Members feel that that would not be easy for them, to abstain. I am told that the Prime Minister has come here to defend the Home Secretary. I must say that that strikes me as though Dickens—or Lionel Bart—had written a new scene into "Oliver", where Fagan defends on behalf of the Artful Dodger.

9.42 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): This debate is yet another in the long series of debates about Chief Enahoro. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition stated that we were not here to debate the episode generally, he was, I thought, rather disingenuous, for he introduced into the beginning of his speech, and carried on through it, a number of observations attacking the action of the British Government and of the Government of Nigeria throughout. This was repeated by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I therefore make no apology for making certain references to the matter as a whole.
Perhaps I may recall to the House—{Interruption.] Yes, I made some notes after the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had spoken, or I knew what he intended to say. The House has discussed this matter on, I think, no less than three occasions, and at different stages. First, there was an argument, if I recall it, that the Fugitive Offenders Act was itself inappropriate, and ought

no longer to govern the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in making decisions.
The underlying thought of that argument was really that what might have been suitable to the earlier conditions, when the Commonwealth consisted of European Dominions or British Colonial Governors was no longer appropriate to the Commonwealth of today. As I said before to the House, I think that the argument of the inappropriateness of the Fugitive Offenders Act is highly insulting to the new Commonwealth countries. Although it is true that there may, by agreement, be some amendment of it, it is the Act, and we ought not unilaterally to go beyond it or outside it.
It certainly cannot be argued that the machinery of our courts has not been fully employed, for the matter was brought up in the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords and on applications for habeas corpus on no less than three occasions, and when the right hon. Member for Belper refers to the removal of the Chief at the end, that is because, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, applications for a writ of habeas corpus can be made indefinitely. Therefore, after the last decision, it was then important to deport the Chief. Some of the highest judges in the land have been engaged on the case, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been careful to explain throughout how he proposed to exercise his final discretion.
The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to the next stage. In our previous debates it was suggested that it was unjust to send the Chief back to stand trial in Nigeria because, it was said, it would not be a fair trial—[Interruption.]That was argued throughout. All through these debates it has been argued that if Chief Enahoro were returned he might, by a curious twist, be condemned upon a capital charge. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the whole question.

Mr. H. Wilson: rose—

The Prime Minister: No.
The most insulting suggestion of all was that, having been got back on one charge, he would be tried upon another. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that was the whole basis of our discussion. The


right hon. Gentleman said that the whole story threw great discredit upon the British Government. Therefore, it is he who has brought up these matters from the start. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he said so, but our belief is that in point of fact Chief Enahoro has been brought up and is being tried precisely on the charges on which he was sent back and on no other charge. The right hon. Member for Belper again attacked today the behaviour of the Nigerian Government. He said that it was time that they learned in Lagos how to behave.

Mr. G. Brown: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Brown: On a point of order. May I claim a point of order, Mr. Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Prime Minister said that I said today that "it was time that they in Lagos learned how to behave." That is totally untrue.

Mr. Speaker: It may be, but even if it is, it raises no point of order. I hope that the House will debate this properly. We have done fairly well so far.

Mr. Brown: The Prime Minister knows that it is untrue.

The Prime Minister: The Opposition have made attacks upon the Nigerian Government which I think are quite unworthy.

Mr. Brown: This is quite outrageous.

The Prime Minister: I cannot believe that any hon. or right hon. Member who might be called upon to be Ministers in the Government of this country would so treat a new Commonwealth country. I only hope that the decisions of the Government and the decisions of the House up to now will have done something to restore the good feeling between us and Nigeria which we greatly value. I think that the Nigerian Government are sensible of the fact that the British Government felt so strongly about it that we were willing even to risk our own fortunes to do our duty by the Commonwealth.
Having lost on every other count, the Opposition now produce a charge against my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. They charge him with misleading the House of Commons. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who moved the Motion, who deceived the

House of Commons. He rested a very great part of his arguments upon an affidavit. They seem to be absolutely nuts on affidavits on the benches opposite. This was paraded as the great basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument and his charge against my right hon. Friend. I am bound to say that for a moment I was rather impressed by the affidavit, but then I found out that this affidavit was one made right at the end of the proceedings in the normal course of the final stages, not in connection with this question at all but with the second of the habeas corpus applications.
Yet the right hon. Gentleman attempted to persuade the House—and he looked very upset when he was found to be wrong—that phrases in this affidavit had materially affected the judgment of the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee in the months of January and February. But, in fact, this was not made till April and in these particular proceedings the Home Secretary was not represented at all.
I am bound to say—and I think all hon. Members will agree—that a charge of bad faith or of misleading the House falls very badly when it is made against my right hon. Friend. He has answered the charge completely today.
Everyone knows that it is not a right of an English counsel to appear in a Nigerian court. It is a privilege. That privilege is very often given and sometimes refused.
When the point was raised before the High Court, counsel for the Nigerian Government was asked to give an undertaking that if the Chief were to choose a counsel from England entitled to appear in the Nigerian court, the Government would not refuse him permission to land merely because he was coming to represent the Chief. That was the argument. It was only upon that point that the courts or my right hon. Friend had to be satisfied.
It is alleged—I do not know whether it is true or not—that that was the sole reason why the two counsel concerned had been refused. If that is so, it was all the more important to ensure that no counsel would be refused merely on the ground that he came to defend the Chief. If it were, true—which I do not know; it is said to be so—that the counsel had been refused on that sole ground before.


then indeed it was important to ensure that there would not be an automatic bar against anyone who came to appear for the Chief.
It was only upon that point that my right hon. Friend quite properly consulted the Lord Chief Justice; it was only upon the point as to whether the court was satisfied and we were all satisfied that he would not be refused English counsel by the mere process of refusing one after another until finally none was available. But it was well known that long before even this case was raised concerning Chief Enahoro, one of the counsel concerned had been sent away from Nigeria and had been declared persona non grata and the other had not been allowed to land. Since then, to prove the good faith of the Nigerian Government, a third counsel. I think coming from the same chambers, has in fact landed to defend the Chief. Therefore, that proves that the Nigerian Government carried out absolutely rigorously what they undertook to do.
It is said that nobody understood that. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir FL Legge-Bourke), who always speaks with the greatest sincerity in this House, said that he did not understand this. I am quite sure the court understood it. I am quite sure the majority of the House understood it. [Hon. Members: "No".] I am quite sure that the lawyers concerned understood it,

Mr. Paget: No.

The Prime Minister: I observe today that a newspaper, which cannot be said to appeal solely to lawyers or specialists, the Daily Mirror, says:
Everybody knew that Mr. Foot had previously been expelled from Nigeria and that Mr. Gratiaen, Q.C., had been refused admission, so it should have been obvious that Enahoro could not have them.
That was the popular view and the popular understanding. So there was no question of misleading the court or the House.

Mr. G. Brown: Quote The Times.

The Prime Minister: As regards my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, of whose words great play was made, he was winding up the debate and addressing himself, curiously enough,

to a point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney, Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I do not say that because the point was raised by the Leader of the Liberal Party, but it was rather curious that the Liberal Party took the view that it was really not of very much importance whether a Nigerian barrister or an English barrister was to appear. My hon. and learned Friend, in winding up the debate, addressed himself to this point.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am much obliged to the Prime Minister for giving way, because this very bad point has been made three times in the debate. Whatever view I took, the Government's view was that it was of supreme importance whether or not barristers were to be allowed into Nigeria to defend the Chief. The point was not in fact answered by the Attorney-General. It was dealt with by the Home Secretary, who said that it was a matter of great importance. What astonishes me is that, in this matter of such importance, at no time in three debates did he think it worth while mentioning to the House of Commons that the counsel concerned would not be allowed in.

The Prime Minister: I was simply on the point as to whether it was important or not, and what my hon. and learned Friend said in winding up the debate was a general statement in general terms. He was not attempting to restate, still less to redefine, what had been stated in very clear and precise terms by the Home Secretary. I think that it is a very weak point to take these phrases out of a winding-up speech when the point had been made twice before in precise form. Had it not been intended that this statement made to the courts and to the House of Commons—

Mr. Paget: Did he know?

The Prime Minister: —should be made in these very precise and carefully chosen words, my hon. and learned Friend would not have used phrases like that; he would have used quite different phrases. The fact that so guarded and carefully worded a statement had been made made it abundantly clear that the Government of Nigeria reserved the right, as every Government has the right to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Did he know?"] —while granting the privilege of appearing in their


courts to English banisters, to exclude those whom it may regard as dangerous or persona non grata from their country.
What is very strange in this affair—

Mr. H. Wilson: Did he know?

The Prime Minister: The question has been answered in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House. If he had been here, he would have heard what was said.
What is so curious is that the Motion has been worded, whether by chivalry or by intent, not to include my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. If the censure is applied to the Home Secretary, why not to the Attorney-General, if that is what the Opposition think? The

Home Secretary has told the House that the Government were aware of the reservation which the Nigerian Government took. The Government as a whole were aware of it, and that has been stated twice.

I return once more to say that I hope that we shall show by our vote tonight not merely our confidence in the Home Secretary but our confidence in the Nigerian Government, and do something to restore the relationships between us which have been destroyed by the Opposition, who pretend to be the lovers of the Commonwealth. They will destroy the Commonwealth if we let them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 313.

Division No. 125.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Albu, Austen
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fernyhough, E.
Kelley, Richard


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Finch, Harold
Kenyon, Clifford


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Fitch, Alan
Key, Rt. Hon, C. W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fletcher, Eric
Lawson, George


Baird, John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Ledger, Ron


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bence, Cyril
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Benson, Sir George
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Gourley, Harry
Lubbock, Eric


Blyton, William
Greenwood, Anthony
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Boardman, H.
Grey, Charles
McBride, N.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McCann, John


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacColl, James


Bowles, Frank
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
MacDermot, Niall


Boyden, James
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
McInnes, James


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gunter, Ray
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bradley, Tom
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McLeavy, Frank


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Denis
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Callaghan, James
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Mapp, Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Marsh, Richard


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mason, Roy


Chapman, Donald
Hill, J (Midlothian)
Mayhew, Christopher


Cliffe, Michael
Hilton, A. V.
Mellish, R. J.


Collick, Percy
Holman, Percy
Mendelson, J. J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Douglas
Millan, Bruce


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Milne, Edward


Cronin, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchison, G. R.


Crosland, Anthony
Hoy, James H.
Monslow, Walter


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold


Darling, George
Hunter, A. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
O'Malley, B. K.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oram, A. E.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Deer, George
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Padley, W. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Janner, Sir Barnett
Paget, R. T.


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Diamond, John
Jeger, George
Pargiter, G. A.


Dodds, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Parkin, B. T.


Donnelly, Desmond
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Paton, John


Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) 
Pavitt, Laurence


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearl, Frederick


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pentland, Norman




Popplewell, Ernest
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wade, Donald


Prentice, R. E.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wainwright, Edwin


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Small, William
Warbey, William


Probert, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Watkins, Tudor


Proctor, W. T.
Snow, Julian
White, Mrs. Eirene


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Whit ock, William


Randall, Harry
Spriggs, Leslie
Wigg, George


Rankin, John
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilkins, W. A.


Redhead, E. C.
Stonehouse, John
Willey, Frederick


Reid, William
Stones, William
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Reynolds, G. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Rhodes, H.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stross, Dr. Barnettt(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Swain, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Swingler, Stephen
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Taverns, D.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Woof, Robert


Ross, William
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Zilliacus, K.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thornton, Ernest



Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thorpe, Jeremy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeffington, Arthur
Tomney, Frank
Mr. Short and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hay, John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Allason, James
Crawley, Aldan
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Critchley, Julian
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Arbuthnot, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hendry, Forbes


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Crowder, F. P.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Atkins, Humphrey
Cunningham, Knox
Hiley, Joseph


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Curran, Charles
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Balniel, Lord
Currie, G. B. H.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Barber, Anthony
Dance, James
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Barlow, Sir John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey


Barter, John
de Ferranti, Basil
Hobson, Sir John


Bataford, Brian
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Holland, Philip


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Drayson, G. B.
Hollingworth, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
du Cann, Edward
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Bell, Ronald
Duncan, Sir James
Hopkins, Alan


Bennett, F. M, (Torquay)
Eden, John
Hornby, R. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Berkeley, Humphry
Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Howard, John(Southampton, Test)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Emery, Peter
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bidgood, John C.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes-Young, Michael


Biffen, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Bingham, R. M.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Farr, John
Iremonger, T. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Black, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford&amp;Stone)
James, David


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jennings, J. C.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Freeth, Denzil
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Box, Donald
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Gammans, Lady
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Gardner, Edward
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Braine, Bernard
George, Sir John (Pollok)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Brewis, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Brooman-White, R.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Godber, J. B.
Kershaw, Anthony


Buck, Antony
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, Marcus


Bullard, Denys
Goodhew, Victor
Lagden, Godfrey


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gough, Frederick
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Burden, F. A.
Gower, Raymond
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grant-Ferris, R.
Leather, Sir Edwin


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

Leavey, J. A.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Green, Alan
Leburn, Gilmour


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lilley, F. J. P.


Cary, Sir Robert
Gurden, Harold
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Chataway, Christopher
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lloyd, Rt Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Longbottom, Charles


Cleaver, Leonard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Longden, Gilbert


Cooke, Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Loveys, Walter H.


Cooper, A. E.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Corfield, F. V.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Coulson, Michael
Hastings, Stephen
MacArthur, Ian







McLaren, Martin
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Talbot, John E.


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Tapsell, Peter


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pitman, Sir James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Pott, Percivall
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Teeling, Sir William


Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Temple, John M.


Macmillan, Maurics (Halifax)
Prior-Palmer, Brig Sir Otho
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Macpherson, Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Maddan, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Maginnis, John E.
Pym, Francis
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maitland, Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ramsden, James
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Marshall, Douglas
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Marten, Neil
Rees, Hugh
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Turner, Colin


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Tweedsmulr, Lady


Mawby, Ray
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt- Hon. Sir John


Mills, Stratton
Robson Brown, Sir William
Vickers, Miss Joan


Miscampbell, Norman
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Montgomery, Fergus
Roots, William
Walder, David


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Walker, Peter


Morrison, John
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Russell, Ronald
Wall, Patrick


Neave, Airey
St. Clair, M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Webster, David


Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Seymour, Leslie
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Sharples, Richard
Whitelaw, William


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Shaw, M.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Skeet, T H. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiewick)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Smithers, Peter
Wise, A. R.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Woodhouse, C. M.


Partridge, E.
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stodart, J. A.
Woollam, John


Peel, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm



Percival, Ian
Storey, Sir Samuel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Peyton, John
Studholme, Sir Henry
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Summers, Sir Spencer
Mr. Finlay.

WHITE FISH INDUSTRY (SUBSIDY)

10.13 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme 1963 (S.I., 1963, No. 770), dated 8th April, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th April, be annulled.
This Scheme is perhaps not quite so exciting as the business which preceded it, but at least it is of importance to a considerable section of our country. On it rests the ability of many people to earn their livelihood. Tonight, we are considering the workings of the 1962 Act and this Scheme, which supplements the subsidies paid under that Act.
Since the passing of the Act the fishing industry has gone through a very difficult time, as will be agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Many sections of the middle water fleet, and especially the Scottish section, have been making losses during the past 12 months of about £6,000 per vessel per annum, according to figures approved by the Scottish Office. These are the figures to which this scheme applies.
During the Committee stage of the Act, my hon. Friends and I raised considerable doubt as to whether the Scheme would meet the needs of the fishing industry. I contrasted it, not unfairly, with the provision for agriculture by the same Ministry. In the context of the principal Act, about £21 million has been made available by way of supplementary grant to spread over the next 10 years. But in any single year the grant must not exceed £350,000.
The Act provides for the grant to be at full rate in the first year, and accordingly one would have thought that then the industry would be economically at its best. Instead, however, considerable losses have been made, as a result of which the supplementary grant must be employed to the full extent of £350,000. I am sure that the House will agree that it is obvious that the industry is not in a very healthy condition.
This Scheme seeks to pay the supplementary grant to the whole of the

fishing industry. I will take the Scottish section first. Those vessels which qualify for the grant would, under the original arrangement, have been entitled to a payment of some £100,000 by way of supplementary grants. But the new Scheme will bring this sum up to £160,000. That is the maximum that the Scottish fleet will receive under this Scheme. This £160,000 has to be distributed between 137 vessels which have made, on the whole, an average loss of some £5,000 to £6,000 in the past year. One can realise at a glance just what effect this grant will have on that section of our fleet.
The main factor is that the middle water and inshore fishing fleet is of tremendous importance to Scotland and its economy. The distant water fleet, about which I am not grumbling, is, in effect, confined to Grimsby and Hull. Thus, the rest of the country's fishing ports are dependent on the middle and inshore fleets for the economic survival of their industry.
The House will, therefore, see that this grant cannot do much more than make up the minimal amount lost by a considerable section of the fleet during the past year. As I have said, this is being done in a year in which 100 per cent. grant is being paid under the 1962 Act. The position of the fleet will worsen in the year ahead. After this year, the subsidy is to fall. Indeed, if I am correct, the subsidy over the first two years of the 10-year period over which the grant is to he whittled down is to be reduced by 7½ per cent. in both the first and second years, meaning that 15 per cent. will be written off in the first two years and the remainder over the next eight.
Does it not seem even to the Government that this is an impossible position in which to place the industry, that in the very first year of grant, when the 100 per cent. payment is being made and when the supplementary grant totalling £350,000 is being paid to its fullest extent, the fishing industry should still be in the red? I should have thought that this was an argument which the Government would be prepared to face tonight and that they would be prepared to tell the House what is proposed in these circumstances.
After all, the problem which has fallen on the fishing industry is not a problem


of its own making. It has been created by agreements in international politics. In other words, the fishing limits around each State are being extended to such an extent that our fishing industry is being denied the right to fish in waters in which our fishermen have always fished. That is the problem and the Government need not think that they can buy off their responsibility by the payment of £350,000 in this year. That is the kernel of the argument. In these circumstances, what are the Government prepared to do?
I should like to give one or two figures of what I estimate to be the effects of the Scheme. The Minister will correct them if my figures are wrong. I understand that under this Scheme vessels of 80 ft. and over but under 90 ft. will qualify for a grant of about £4 2s. as against the £1 of the original Scheme. Vessels of 90 ft. and more but under 100 ft., mainly used by fishermen from Aberdeen and Milford Haven and affecting a tremendous part of the Scottish fleet, will qualify for a subsidy of about £4 as compared with £2 under the old Scheme. Milford Haven vessels which were to get a subsidy of some £2 per vessel are to get only 19s. under the new Scheme.
Vessels of 110 ft. or more but under 120 ft., important to the Scottish section of the fleet, are to receive subsidies ranging from £3 2s, in Fleetwood to £8 3s. in North Shields with Aberdeen and Granton qualifying at £5 and Grimsby and Lowestoft at £5 16s.. dependent on the length of the voyage. Those may seem to be substantial improvements and I do not seek to belittle them, but considering the condition of the industry as a whole and the losses which it has been making, they are no more than the industry is entitled to receive.
One interesting fact emerges from the Scheme. Vessels of 120 ft. and over operating from Aberdeen are to get £3, from North Shields £2 10s., from Grimsby and Milford Haven £6 13s., from Lowestoft £5 14s. and from Fleetwood £3 16s. That is compared with £3 under the old arrangements. But Milford Haven was not even mentioned in the 1962 Scheme. Is this an addition to the arrangement? We are entitled to know how much of the £350,000 this inclusion will cost.
I hope that I have said enough to show that the fishing industry is going through an extremely difficult time. Constant efforts by other countries to extend their fishing limits are having a serious effect upon our fishing industry. I wish the Minister to pay attention to the fact that we have not been dependent on the importation of fish from other countries. There are certain fishing companies in this country, especially in respect of the distant water fleet, which make up their income from subsidiary companies concerned with deep freeze. Some companies are concerned not only with fish for freezing purposes but they also deal in frozen vegetables, and can supplement their income from these subsidiary companies which they own.
Tonight we are interested in the fishing fleet. In Scotland, in many parts of England and in Wales the middle water and offshore fleets are basic to the economy. We are grateful—perhaps grateful is not quite the correct word—for the small supplementations which are given. But they present no answer to the problem confronting the industry. We will accept what is offered but we should like to know what action it is proposed shall be taken. What action will be taken by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Will the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell us what action is to be taken in respect of Scotland, because this matter is extremely important to the Scottish economy?

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) indicated that the fishing industry is in difficulties and I think the point should be made that the reason for the difficulties is partly the overbuilding which has been going on during recent years which has been emphasised by the joining together of the distant water and middle water fleets. There is also the other basic difficulty—which is beyond the control of this Government or the country—caused by the extension of fishing limits throughout the world and the fact that this country is the greatest market for fish in Europe. To suggest that this problem might be debated at this hour in connection with such a Scheme as this is, I suggest, wholly wrong.
The House will remember that the Government are to take part in a conference to consider the issues connected with the expansion of the fishing limits and markets. I hope that note will be taken of what has been done about agriculture so that similar action may be taken about fishing. Perhaps all these grants would not be necessary were there some form of restriction on imports. But this is not the time and place to debate these issues.
I hope that the Government will accept the fact that hon. Members on this side of the House, and I believe hon. Members opposite, will want a debate on fishing after the long Recess and the conference. I understand that the Government are providing in subsidies this year the maximum amount of money which is possible under previous legislation, and that the Scheme allows for increased payments for the appropriate categories of vessels. On that narrow issue I do not think there is much about which hon. Members can grumble. But may I say again that I hope that the Government will bear in mind the need for a major debate on all the matters affecting the fishing industry as soon as possible after the European conference?

10.30 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I wish to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and to point out that I find myself in some difficulty in being expected to debate a Scheme such as this in isolation, so to speak. We always seem to be in the difficulty of having to debate the fishing industry either in the middle of the night or on a Statutory Instrument which is placed before us more or less without notice and on which we have no real background, except the knowledge which comes to us through discussions in the various ports which we represent.
I appreciate that I cannot say much about the operation of the Scheme which is before us. I was greatly interested in the details of the new arrangements which have been made for the port of North Shields. However, in view of the problem which is covered by the Scheme—a major problem for North Shields—I should have preferred to have had a greater discussion about the problem of getting some trawlers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice suggested that one of the reasons for the Order, and one reason why the fishing industry is finding itself in such difficulties, is because we have been overbuilding. I do not wish to get involved in a controversy between England and Scotland, but I think that a part of our difficulties—that is, from the point of view of my constituency—is that the Scots grab so much of the money for building the trawlers that there is nothing left for any of us.
I do not believe that it is a good idea to have amalgamated the distant and middle water fleets for the purposes of this kind of subsidy. While I would find it difficult to oppose the Scheme, I wish to let the Government know that we expect a major debate, with plenty of time available—and not at this hour of the night—on the fishing fleet at the earliest possible moment after the Whitsun Recess.
I want to make it perfectly plain, in no uncertain terms, that Scotland has had too much out of the industry and that my part of the world has had very little. I want the Government to adjust the situation, not merely by way of money because it is no good offering us subsidies if we do not have the trawlers to go out to sea to catch the fish. It makes no difference to us what we get by any arrangements if we do not have the trawlers. I do not wish to say very much at this time of night. I am profoundly disturbed at the Ministry appearing to go forward in a hit and miss way when it comes to the fishing industry. Far too few people seem interested in the fundamental difficulties which the industry faces today.
I am grateful that a conference is to take place but, as I say, the announcement is made without prior notice of any sort. The Lord Privy Seal makes an announcement, nobody explains the real problems of the industry and the fleet; the Minister just produces a Scheme and expects hon. Members to accept it. Nobody takes the trouble to explain what it is all about and it is left to the Opposition to oppose it. It is high time that the Government put their house in order on these issues and that the Minister paid a little more attention to fisheries and not so much to agriculture. That may not go down well with


some of my hon. Friends, but it is worth while saying it.
In the meantime, before we have the major debate of which I spoke, I hope that we will see a better adjustment of the spending of the money, so that more is spent in support of those fishing ports which are in the greatest difficulty. If the port of Aberdeen will send us a few vessels with which to fish from North Shields we will get our proper proportion of the subsidy; but they must work for the region I represent and the balance of the money being spent on building new fishing vessels in the port of Aberdeen and the money going elsewhere must be considered, because Aberdeen is swallowing the lot.
I look forward to the House having a major debate in which we will have ample time to consider the difficulties of the industry. After all, the economy of the country depends to a great extent on the fishing fleet, which has done so much for Britain. A full debate is needed. not just a few minutes at this time of night.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has said practically all that need be said in favour of the Prayer, and I welcome the support that has come from the other side of the House. I quarrel with the Government's general policy towards the fishing industry, which has difficulties of its own, and I protest against the way in which the Government, by sporadic measures of this kind, change their policy towards it. The Government should have a consistent and constructive policy that would allow all sections of the industry to know where they are from year to year and from month to month. That is not the present position. This little Instrument is an example of the unhappy and unstable way in which the Government treat an industry whose ancillaries also suffer from the same instability of Government policy.
Another strange feature of this debate is that we have not yet heard a Minister explain why the Scheme has been introduced. The Government should introduce Schemes—any Schemes—relating to the fishing industry on a reasonable basis. They should certainly explain how they have the audacity to produce this Scheme, against which I protest.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I agree with what has been said so far about discussing this great industry at this time of night, and I hope that in the near future we shall have the chance of a full-scale debate. I welcome the Government's recent initiative in giving notice to reserve their right to increase the fishery limits. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) —whom we were all glad to hear, as he has a great knowledge of the industry—spoke of the difficulties of the inshore fishermen. It has been extremely difficult for those on the inshore side to impress on the Government the necessity for increasing the fishery limits. That notice has been given, but I understand that we are likely to have a good deal of difficulty with the French in the near future.
I hope very much that the Government will take the kind of action that General de Gaulle has taken recently in many matters. I hope that they will take that action with the French if they start making trouble over our limits. It is about time that this country did something for our own people. It is about time that we told the French that we are very sorry but, for the reasons which many of us have explained on many occasions in the House, we think that we should increase the limits.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Perhaps the hon. Member would help me. To what limits is he referring? I hope that he will keep to the Scheme which we are now debating.

Mr. Howard: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I agree that perhaps I was a little carried away on the subject of fishery limits which we hope the Government will increase to help the inshore fishing industry. The question of the conference on the restriction of imports has been mentioned.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Member but there is nothing about the restriction of imports in the Scheme which we are now discussing.

Mr. Howard: Again I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but as it has been mentioned in the debate so far I naturally thought that it was in order to mention it now.
Another point which I wished to raise and which the Scheme does mention is the quest on of payments per day at sea. Some of us have been trying for many years to impress upon the Government that it would be a good thing if this day-payments scheme also applied to the inshore fishing industry. I hope that the Government may consider that again before we have a further debate. I support the plea for a full-scale debate on the fishing industry and not a debate of this kind late at night. We should have the time to devote our attention to the whole of this vitally important industry. I hope also that the Government will answer some of the questions put during tonight's debate.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Here we are once again having brought before us at 10.30 at night some delegated legislation which to me is very complicated and to which is attached an insufficient Explanatory Note on why subsidies are to be paid and why they should differentiate between different vessels at different ports. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not accept the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) to think less of agriculture and more of fisheries, because I believe that the majority of hon. Members would prefer a bit of Scotch beef steak to a Lowestoft kipper.
I cannot understand how the figures mentioned in this Scheme are arrived at. A vessel of between 90 feet and 100 feet sailing from Aberdeen qualifies for a payment of £4 a day while at sea, but a vessel sailing from Milford Haven qualifies for only 19s. I happen to be a Welshman who represents a Scottish constituency. I am therefore in favour of the £4 for Aberdeen, but as Wales is my native land I resent the 19s. only for Milford Haven. We should have an explanation of that.
If we come to a vessel of 120 feet—that is only 20 feet longer, 10 feet on each end—and it sails from Aberdeen, it gets £3, but if it sails from Milford Haven it gets £6 13s. A vessel of 90 feet sailing from Aberdeen gets £4, but if it sails from Milford Haven it gets 19s. A vessel of 90 feet sailing from Aberdeen

gets £1 less than a vessel of 110 feet. I want to know how in the name of fortune these figures have been arrived at. Why are there these seemingly contradictory figures for sailings from different ports?
I have been a Member of this House for 12 years, and ever since I came here we have had every year Orders to increase subsidies for those either producing or processing food. It seems to me that we have come to this situation—we must recognise it—that no one economically can get his living out of fishing or otherwise producing food without a subsidy from the State. In these 12 years the subsidies have gone up, and the price of the product does not come down. We are paying more and more in price for the product, be it fish or agricultural produce, and we are paying more and more in taxation to keep the business going. I think it is about time we had an inquiry into what is happening in the gathering of fish, and its distribution in the market, when we have this situation where we have to keep on subsidising this very important industry.

Mr. G. R. Howard: It is being done.

Mr. Bence: It is being done by the Fleck Committee. There is an investigation. I hope it will result in resolving what seems to me to be the ridiculous situation we have in such a tremendous field of economic activity, which we have to keep subsidising.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will devote his argument to the comparatively narrow field of this Scheme.

Mr. Bence: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought I would say that at the end of my remarks, because I thought it might be approaching the limit of order. But I do want to hear the Minister's explanation of these figures for the rates of grant.
In the circumstances, since the Scheme is helping our fishing industry. I am not opposed to it, because I recognise that the industry is in difficulties, probably not of its own making, but because of weaknesses in the organisation of the production and distribution of fish in general, but I think the House and the taxpayers are entitled to know exactly on what principles these subsidies are fixed and the differences between the


different ports. Aberdonians will not like £3 for a 120 ft. vessel when a Milford Haven one gets £6 13s. Wales will not like the other figure. I hope that there is an explanation for all these figures.

10.49 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: I. want only to ask one or two questions about this Scheme. Various hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), mentioned the question of inshore fishermen. As I understand it, inshore fishermen are not covered by this Scheme. Therefore, their rate of subsidy is unchanged. I want to get that clear. In addition, an Aberdeen coal-fired vessel is not covered by the Scheme. The subsidy for the Aberdeen coal-fired vessels is unchanged. The Scheme covers only middle water and distant water vessels of 80 ft. in length up to 140 ft. which are oil-fired steam vessels or motor vessels. It is limited to that. In Scotland, it comes down to Aberdeen and Granton, and in England the ports are as listed in the Schedule.
I was not quite clear what the hon. Member for Leith meant in speaking of the £350,000, which is the 100 per cent. grant allowed for this year. Does it include the inshore fishermen and the coal-fired Aberdeen vessels, or is it just the vessels covered by the Scheme?

Mr. E. G. Willis: It was my hon. Friend who raised this.

Sir J. Duncan: But it is the Government's job to answer a Prayer, and the Government will answer it. The hon. Gentleman made this case for the Prayer, and he did not make this point clear. That is all I am saying.
As I understand it, as regards the oil-fired steam vessels and the motor vessels between 80 ft. and 140 ft., this is a topping-up operation. The original subsidy rates were in the last Scheme, and the topping-up this time, I presume, comes as a result of the enormous losses which have been made in varying degree by vessels fishing from various ports. I have not late information, and the hon. Member for Leith has later information than I have. From what I was able to learn a few months ago, it was clear that all the vessels fishing off

the Faroes and a lot of them fishing off Icelandic and further waters were losing a very great deal of money. This applied particularly to those fishing the middle waters and the Faroes out of Aberdeen and Granton. Even under the original subsidy rates, they were losing a great deal. The hon. Gentleman spoke of £5,000 to £6,000 a year. That was the estimate at the time. The Faroes fishing was going down and down, and it was increasingly difficult because of the limits. They were not even earning enough money to pay the interest on the Government loan.
I want to know whether this topping-up operation will make it possible for these people to repay the Government loan, let alone make a profit. There are quite a lot of men involved, besides the owners. A good many men take a share in the earnings of the vessels. It is a loss not only to the owners of the vessels but to the skippers and crews, and they would suffer, too, if they cannot make enough to repay the loan and leave something for themselves out of their arduous operations.
I take it that the difference in all these figures comes as a result of costings taken out at the various ports. I assume that that accounts for the differences according to whichever port the vessels sail from. I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's explanation of why the differences are so great. I can understand it, but I think that an explanation is required. For instance, the daily payment for a vessel of 110 ft. but under 120 ft. out of North Shields is £8 3s. whereas at Aberdeen it is only £5.

Dame Irene Ward: Does my hon. Friend propose to ask how many vessels are sailing from the port of North Shields and how many are sailing from Aberdeen and Granton?

Sir J. Duncan: No, I was not going to ask that. The fact is that there must be at least one vessel, otherwise the subsidy would not be in the Schedule. As my hon. Friend has interrupted me, I would say that I am rather surprised at her back-handed compliment to the Scots. If she has not got any trawlers or fishing vessels being built at Tynemouth or North Shields, it is her own fault. It simply means that the Scots are more business. like and energetic than the English.

Dame Irene Ward: Not at all. It is because the Secretary of State for Scotland has grabbed the money.

Sir J. Duncan: That is not in the Schedule or anywhere else in the Scheme. In short, the Scheme, which does not come with a very clear Explanatory Note, needs some detailed explanation. It lasts only until 31st July. I suppose it would be out of order to discuss what happens after that date. I simply echo what has been said already in respect of the future. As the Act says that next year's subsidies have to be reduced—I forget whether it is next year or the year after—

Mr. Willis: Next year.

Sir J. Duncan: Next year it comes down by 7½ per cent. The very fact that these subsidies have had to be topped up this year means that we shall have to have another Scheme with even bigger figures next year if we are to keep vessels of these types fishing profitably so as to be able to repay the Government loan.

10.57 pan.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: We have had perhaps one of our more confused debates on the fishing industry this evening, partly no doubt because the hour is late, and partly because we have had the benefit of one non-fishing intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who made up for his ignorance of the fact that the Fleck Committee had even sat by reading large chunks of the Scheme verbatim. Some of those who have spoken have already left the House. I think that, if hon. Members speak, they should have the courtesy to wait for the rest of the debate. Anyway, for a variety of reasons, we have had a somewhat unusually confused debate.
What we are discussing is something relatively simple—a supplemental Scheme which gives discriminatory aid to certain parts of the industry. I think that I am correct in saying that my constituency of Grimsby gains nothing from the Scheme for the distant water section, although we gain from the middle and near water sections. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) was wrong when he was discussing who was aided by the Scheme. It does not affect the inshore fishing fleet, nor does it affect the distant water fleet, with the exception

of a very small number of vessels in Hull. The Scheme is primarily concerned with the middle and near water sections.
]
In principle, this kind of aid is right. This is discriminatory supplemental aid to particular sections of the fleet. This is right. It is clearly the case at the moment that the near and middle water sections of the fleet are doing much worse than the distant water section. In terms of firms—I quote from my constituency because I know them best—in my constituency there are small family firms mainly engaged in near and middle water fishing which are extremely badly off and in a precarious position. They are a long way behind with their interest payments on White Fish Authority loans. Their position is desperate.
If we are to aid the industry at all, all our aid, or all the aid where we have any freedom of manoeuvre, should go to the near and middle water sections. At the moment, I would say that there is no case for giving additional money to the distant water section of the fleet. Quite apart from the fact that in this section the fishing is better at the moment, the fact that there is no case is due mainly to the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) said, they tend to belong to extremely powerful mixed groups—like the Ross Group, Associated Fisheries, and the rest. They do not rely solely on their fishing. From their own point of view quite rightly, they have spread their risks. They have branched out into all kinds of other activities. It cannot be said that these firms are desperately situated at the moment.
The Ross Group recently announced that it expects its profits for the coming year to be double what they were in the past year. I am happy to say this, because the group is heavily engaged in my constituency. Associated Fisheries has a slightly more uncertain outlook, though nobody can say that this firm is in desperate straits. I accept the principle which is embodied in this Scheme of concentrating all the supplemental help we can into the near and middle water sections. My objection to the Scheme is not to the Scheme as such, but to what it illustrates. I think that the Government are guilty—in fact, we may have been guilty on this side


of the House as well—of having a hand-to-mouth policy for the fishing industry. What happens in all our fishing debates is that about twice a year we all speak for whatever constituencies we represent and say that the Government should give slightly bigger subsidies to whichever section of the fleet we are most interested in.
My complaint fundamentally is that the Government, who have the resources, unlike ordinary Members of Parliament, should take a much longer-term view of the future of the fishing industry. It may be for all we know—I am not stating this—that this is an industry which fundamentally will decline over the next ten years. I do not say it will, but it might be the case. If so, then the answer to this problem—we ought to know this from our consideration of the cotton textile industry—is not to come to the House once a year demanding bigger subsidies to prevent the decline continuing.
If the industry is in a situation of decline, we ought to ask the Government to take a long-term view of the industry and to say that we must have a policy which includes not only subsidies but possibly import controls and some kind of restriction inside the industry related to the capacity of the industry, and so on. We ought to have some sort of long-term plan for a phased decline in the industry.
My main objection to the Scheme is that it is a sort of ad hoc, once-in-awhile, hand-to-mouth kind of policy. Whether the Government have got the resources to produce a longer-term policy I do not know. I have grave doubts whether the Ministry as now organised has a long-term research and planning section which is capable of taking the kind of view for which I am asking. I am certain that the White Fish Authority is not capable of taking this kind of view. It lacks the resources.
I am making a slightly incoherent but positive plea for increases in particular subsidies which we debate in a somewhat unto-ordinated fashion about twice a year, and for some slightly more coherent long-term view to be taken by the Government.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. E G. Willis: I rise to support the Scheme, to ask for some information and to make one or two comments.
It is obvious, from the present state of the near and middle water fleets, that something must be done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has said, the method proposed in this Scheme is probably the way to do it, if it is based on the costing of the boats and placing the subsidy where it is most needed. I am not altogether certain about that, but at least I assume that it is an endeavour on the part of the Government to do this. Nevertheless, we ought to have some explanation of the various amounts in the Scheme.
I was interested in the special plea of my hon. Friend for longer-term planning When I first saw this Scheme planning. I wondered how it fitted into the longer-term recommendations of the Fleck Committee. If I remember aright, the Fleck Committee conclusions were that there could be a slight increase in the market with slightly smaller fleets, and that the industry could be put into a paying position within ten years. The conclusions of the Fleck Committee were accepted by the Government and some of them were embodied in the Measure under which the Scheme is made, and I should like to know whether the Government think that those conclusions are still sound.

Sir J. Duncan: The hon. Member will realise that the Fleck Committee reported long before the ban on the Faroes.

Mr. Willis: I know that the situation in respect of the Faroes has changed, and that a number of other factors have also helped to change the picture in the fishing industry. I am merely asking the Government to give us the true picture. I was rather surprised when no Government spokesman followed my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) to give this information to the House. It is difficult for us to assess what the Scheme does and how it fits into the general plan unless we know what are the estimates of the Government. What do the Government think about the conclusions of the Fleck Committee?
Considerable changes have occurred. The whole question of fishery limits will be discussed as a result of the initiative of the Government. But the Government have waited a long time to do this. I appreciate the reason why they have not wanted to be too hasty, but we are still suffering considerably because of what amounts almost to hesitancy on their part to take any effective action on the question of the limits.
A number of other questions arise, concerning the organisation of the industry, which form part of the recommendations of the Fleck Committee, and the Government should tell us what their views are. Are the conclusions of that Committee—upon which the 1962 Measure was based —still agreed to by the Government? If not, what are the Government's present views?
That leads me to express agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby that we should have someone in the Ministry endeavouring to make up the long-term picture and trying to measure future trends.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I feel that he is getting a little far from the Scheme.

Mr. Willis: I have no wish to stray from the Scheme, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it arises out of the 1962 Act, and the pieces of the Act on which it is based are those which I have been enunciating. We should bear them in mind when we are considering whether the Scheme is good or bad.
In my view, the Scheme is necessary as an immediate remedy for the undoubtedly serious situation which exists in our near and middle water fleets, but we should be told in what way it fits into the wider picture. We should be told bow it varies the assumptions upon which the Government were working last year, and what the Government are doing to change those assumptions in accordance with the changes taking place in fishing throughout the world. The Government should have given us that picture when my hon. Friend the Member for Leith finished his speech.

Mr. Wall: It will be difficult to get a clear picture until we have had the European Fisheries Conference, embracing the

questions of limits and markets. Does not the hon. Member give the Government credit for calling that conference?

Mr. Willis: I am prepared to do that. I recognise the importance of the conference, but the Government should tell us something about this, because the Scheme fits into it. We must subsidise these vessels until something is done. The Scheme only goes up to 31st July, 1963—eight weeks hence. This conference will not have finished by then. Therefore, we should know why this applies only to that date. Why is it to be only for the first seven months of the year? We would like an answer to these questions in order to be able to understand how the Scheme fits in to the overall picture of the needs of the fishing industry.

11.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brootman-White): The rather limited purposes of the Order are, I think, clearly understood by the hon. Members for fishing constituencies, including the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). It is a limited operation. In the nature of the legislation under which we are working, it is bound to be.
The subsidy review of the supplementary payment given in 1962 was based on detailed figures for 1961 and some information, not so concise, for the early months of 1962. Further information which came in during the summer and autumn of last year showed that there were continuing and further difficulties among some of the vessels helped by the earlier supplements and that there were other vessels not covered by the earlier supplementary payments which were also in difficulties.
The Government were approached by the British Trawler Federation and by representatives of the Scottish Trawler Federation asking that an additional supplementary should be given up to the maximum available in the financial year. That had been done under earlier orders, and it was made clear in the debate on those earlier orders that a substantial sum was being withheld to await developments and see if it was necessary to apply that sum and, if it had to be


applied, where it could be most effectively used.
Several hon. Members spoke of the application of these admittedly rather complicated figures as between port and port and vessel and vessel of different types. The distributions were based, in this second instalment of the supplementary payments, in the case of England and Wales on figures which were discussed with the Ministry by the British Trawler Federation. In the case of Scotland, the Scottish Trawler Federation discussed the matter with us. It said that although it wanted the supplementary payment up to the maximum available, it would prefer that the actual distribution in Scotland should be undertaken by the Scottish Office in the light of further evidence which it made available.
These figures have been worked out in consultation with the industry. They have been accepted by the industry, which would, of course, have liked more overall. But the actual division between ports and ships has been accepted by the industry as satisfactory in the circumstances.
The hon. Member for Leith and others began to touch on the wider considerations as far as they could within the rules of order. This is a limited operation, however. A limited sum is fixed by the Statute and we have gone to the maximum. The hon. Member for Leith said that the industry had gone through a difficult time and was not in a very healthy position. We would not quarrel with that. He mentioned the middle and inshore fleets and their importance to the Scottish economy, and I would not quarrel with that. But my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and the hon. Member for Grimsby made it clear that the wider considerations did not apply to this operation. A conference is, we hope, to be held at which underlying problems of the fishing industry will be thrashed out.
The hon. Member for Leith implied that this year we were in a position which would deteriorate. That is not necessarily so. I agree that the basic subsidy is to come up for reduction, but we hope that the position of the industry will not depend on the position of the basic subsidy. Many measures are

under consideration by the industry and we hope that they will be considered internationally so that the whole future of the industry can be put on a much more stable and prosperous basis.

Mr. Hoy: If these special subsidy payments exceed the limit before 31st July, will the whole scheme of supplementation come to an end because there is no more money in the fund to meet the need?

Mr. Brooman-White: These payments have been arranged in the most careful consideration with the industry and the Departments to do the maximum without exceeding the ceiling in this period, leaving a slight margin for error. It is retrospective and covers part of the preceding arrangements as well.
The hon. Member for Leith mentioned average losses. His general estimates per vessel were, in the main, correct. He spoke of the average losses of Scottish near and middle water trawlers. The figure he gave was based on a depreciation allowance of 10 per cent., which is a pretty tough depreciation allowance. Taking depreciation as 63 per cent. of actual cost, average losses were £2,500 for near water and £3,350 for middle water trawlers. I accept that those figures are far from satisfactory, but I have given them for the record.

Sir J. Duncan: Does that mean that the topping-up figures will enable the boats to pay their way?

Mr. Brooman-White: The effect on the topping-up figures would depend on the position of the individual companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) laid a good deal of stress on the conference which we hope will be convened. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth made a rather regional, almost syndicalised speech, for she not only extended her strictures to the Ministry of Agriculture as well as to the effectiveness of the Scottish Office in getting support for the Scottish industry, which is admittedly in difficulties, but joined her voice to others which asked for a fuller debate. We take note of that. She also mentioned the wider considerations which would, of course, come into a fuller debate at the appropriate time.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) was quite right to say that the Scheme does not cover inshore vessels. Coal-fired steam vessels are still covered by the 1962 Scheme.
The hon. Member for Grimsby and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) were concerned with the wider issues, the future of Fleck, and so on. Tonight, we are considering the best way of distributing the total of money available for this purpose among the various categories of vessels and ports which need special assistance. This is accepted by the industry as the best way, and I hope that the House will accept it.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: By leave of the House, may I say that steam vessels are, of course, covered in the first part of the Scheme and that there is nothing which in any way depreciates the allowance for them. There is a reassessment in the first part of the Scheme. I have not worked it out, but I have worked out the second part and I accept responsibility for the figures—I did not have any assistance from the Government, but I do not think that they are inaccurate.
It would be out of order to refer to the conference about which the Lord Privy Seal told the House, but it was suggested to the right hon. Gentleman a long time ago. I regret that it has taken him so long to appreciate what the suggestion meant when it was made about three years ago.
I cannot go over the whole question of building during the past year. I have said previously, on other occasions, that a considerable amount of over building took place. The responsibility for this must rest with the White Fish Authority, the Herring Industry Board and the Government. One of the great deficiencies of the Fleck Report was the fact that neither Sir Alexander Fleck nor the members of his Committee faced up to the problem of whether we should have a balanced industry. I hope that we shall have a full debate, when this matter can be adequately discussed. We can then consider getting a balance in the industry, for at present it is obviously in a state of imbalance.
The problem to which the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)

referred—and we are always delighted to see her with us in our fishing debates—has arisen not because Scotland has more than its share. It may be that Scotland has a little more than Tynemouth, but North Shields has been rather backward in this respect. I hope—and I say this to her warmly—that her constituency will invest a little more in the industry. The assistance is available to everyone. Aberdeen was backward. it was in very much the same condition as North Shields, but it took advantage of the Scheme.

Dame Irene Ward: Since the hon. Member is being so nice, kind and generous towards what I said earlier, I will not disagree with him. If this really is the responsibility of the Government, the White Fish Authority, and so on, they must have known how much money was available. Should they have allowed overbuilding to have continued, without leaving any for us? The Government have for years been encouraging our port to build more vessels; but when we have the people who want to build them we find that there is no money. The Government are refusing help because, they say, "You are over-building in Aberdeen."

Mr. Hoy: The position is not quite that. It is that the trawler owners in her constituency were a little slow in taking action. The hon. Lady must not blame Aberdeen for that. In any case, Aberdeen was not very quick off the mark in this respect. There is not a particularly good record there of which to be proud. When one admits that from this Box it says even less for the trawler owners of Tyneside.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) welcomed the debate. I thought that I should table the Prayer because that was the only method by which we could initiate the debate. Had the Prayer not been tabled there would not have been a debate, so I thought it right, in the circumstances, to table it.
I can inform my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) that the selection is not always between a bit of Scotch beef and a kipper. There is a much wider choice. I would remind hon. Members that the one pure food we can get today is taken from the sea. For this food we do not depend on artificial fertilisers, and so on.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said that the inshore fishermen were not getting anything out of the Scheme. It is true that it does not specifically benefit them, but if there is any industry which is interdependent one section upon another it is the fishing industry. If there is a contraction of the distant water fleet, it means a narrowing of the middle water fleet and it has an impact on the fishing grounds which have previously been regarded as the right of the inshore fleet. This interdependence is found right through the industry. What is important to one section is equally important to another.

Sir J. Duncan: All I said was that they were not in the Scheme.

Mr. Hoy: If they were not in the Scheme, they should not have been discussed.
I was seeking to stress the interdependence of one section of the industry on another. It is true that even with this extra subsidy, the middlewater fleet is not able to repay the grants made to it by the White Fish Authority, and the interest charges. That is what faces us, and it is appalling. I could not agree more than I do with my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), when he said that we have been living on a kind of hand-to-mouth policy. That is not the responsibility of this side of the House, because for many years we have been arguing for an overall policy for the industry so that those in it not only know what the industry requires but what the Government require of it. Even since the publication of the Fleck Report, the industry still does not know what the Government want.
I think that the debate has done some good by proving that even with this supplementary grant the industry remains in an extremely difficult position. It behoves all of us who are interested in it to take the opportunity to think again over what should be done in the immediate future. If the debate has done no more than stimulate that thinking, it has done a very good job for the industry and the country. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (DURHAM RURAL DISTRICT)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Finlay.]

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to press the need to include the Durham Rural District Council area in the list of development districts under Section 1 of the Local Employment Act. I understand that a previous attempt to do this, failed. What argument the Minister used then, I do not know, but I believe that the time has now come when the whole matter should be looked at again. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary for Science here, as representing the Lord President of the Council; perhaps, jointly, we can look at the topic afresh and, maybe, get a different answer from that previously given.
The whole question needs reviewing because, since the original request was turned down, the unemployment figures have risen considerably. Although there has been a slight decrease, they are still very high. Official statistics do not reveal the seriousness of the problem facing the rural district councillors, and owing to the present set-up it is impossible to expect anything else. If I may say so with respect, the present situation is completely silly. We have a local authority that cannot find out how many unemployed it has—or how many employed for that matter. Such a crazy state of things must be put right.
I appreciate that the position is due to the fact that the local government boundaries differ from those of the local employment exchange areas, and that the local authority's problem is somewhat consequential on that fact. Further, I know that any change of local government boundaries greatly involves the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Realising that, my present effort is to find a way out of the difficulty.
I hope that I may be allowed to quote the facts about the position of this local authority. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is fully aware of the position, but I must present the full


background before I state the case. The Durham Rural District Council's area is split between four local employment exchanges. First, there is the West Rain-ton parish within the Houghton-le-Spring exchange area. Then there is Shadforth parish in the Haswell exchange area, and Kelloe parish in the Wingate area. The remainder come under the Durham Employment Exchange. A further complication arises because unemployed persons are not bound to register for employment at the exchange which the Minister of Labour decides may be appropriate to their area.
The result is a silly situation, with people living in Kimblesworth probably registering at Chester-le-Street, people at Brancepeth registering at Crook, and people living in Heat and Coxhoe registering at Spennymoor, and others at the Durham Exchange. People who live in the local government area of Brandon and Byshottles, which is part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley), sign on at Durham exchange.
This is a lopsided arrangement but the simple explanation is that these local employment exchange areas are those nearest to the homes of these people. It can he seen, therefore, that in this sort of situation the local employment figures of the Durham Rural District Council are being lost in the figures of these employment exchange areas. The only way the local authority can find out who is unemployed is to go round knocking at doors and asking people whether or not they have signed on.
This knowledge, or lack of knowledge, causes a great deal of concern to the local authority. I share that concern, as I know do the Parliamentary Secretary and the Lord President of the Council. I say this because I know the extent to which the labour force in the area has contracted. I also fully realise—and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has been given a note about it—that the proportion of the insured population of the Durham Rural District Council's area who are dependent upon the mining industry for their livelihood is greater by far than the proportion for the county as a whole. There are six coal mines within the area of the local authority. Four years ago they employed 6,184 men. Over recent years this figure has

been reduced by 1,382 to the present total of 4,802 men. These figures take no account of the considerable number of mineworkers who travel to pits outside the area of the Durham Rural District Council where similar drastic reductions in manpower have taken place and continue to take place.
Many miners have moved away to other coalfields and this is another factor which has caused great concern. Members of the council and other people in the area feel that this migration is something which needs to be stopped, because if it is not stopped we shall get another kind of problem. It is a problem which only the council would have to face. What would happen to a place like Bowburn, a mining village within the Durham Rural District, which built 613 houses a few years ago to meet post-war demand? What will happen if this migration continues, coupled with an increasing level of unemployment among those who remain? The problem will not be one building more houses or of how to build them. It will be to find tenants for the existing houses. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade himself have gone into this and considered this aspect of the matter. if they have they are bound to realise that this state of affairs cannot continue and demands immediate attention.
It would be a very wise decision, I suggest, if the Parliamentary Secretary would say to us tonight that Durham will be placed on the active list and scheduled as a development district. I am hoping that he will consider this request very carefully. We all know that the President of the Board of Trade has power under the Act to schedule certain areas. We have differences of opinion about what amount of unemployment there should first be, but there has to be a certain level of local unemployment, or it is imminent. I will put it no higher than that. It could be a satisfactory arrangement to have the local government boundaries and the local employment exchange areas covering the same area, but it is a very unsatisfactory arrangement where they do not, and that is the position of Durham R.D.C., and, as I said earlier, and I repeat, it is a silly situation and needs putting right.
What the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind tonight I do not know. I hope


that it is something good, but I am assuming the worst. I assume that he will tell me, "We have already done this. We have put Houghton-le-Spring on the list, and Haswell and Wingate, and these areas surround Durham Employment Exchange area and, therefore, Durham should benefit as a consequence." But why leave this unscheduled island? That is what it is. It is surrounded with scheduled areas and is an unscheduled island, although we have some of the best sites in the county. But because they are unscheduled there is not financial inducement to industrialists to go and they are not shown the sites in this area. They are shown only the sites in the areas which are scheduled.
I feel convinced that I am right in saying that we should schedule the Durham Employment Exchange area. I am prepared to say that it would he an advantage to the areas I have mentioned. Some of the sites within the local authority areas are close to the A.1 Road, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, that road is a tremendous advantage to industrialists. Also, the scheduling of Durham could establish a growth point which would be of benefit to the whole neighbourhood. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will bear that in mind too.
Within the local authority area coming under the Durham Rural District Council is a population of 36,700. The council has done a wonderful job for these people. It has carried out its functions with a high degree of success, giving much satisfaction to the people there. It has built houses—perhaps not sufficient to meet all demands, but it has done a good job. It has built 6,000 houses, 3,000 since 1945, which, as the House will appreciate, is no mean achievement.
But the sad fact is that the council has new fears, fears of unemployment. It wants to take effective steps to deal with this serious problem, but it cannot do all it could, for two reasons. First, it cannot find out how many unemployed persons they have. Secondly, it is hampered because the whole area is not scheduled as a development district. For these two reasons, and in the light of the set of circumstances which I outlined earlier, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared now to say that Durham will be placed on the list.

11.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I am very happy to reply to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), who has, as I know my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science will agree, deployed his arguments with the sincerity and charm which we all associate with him.
I wish to make clear at the outset that both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I realise that the area around Durham City is one which has traditionally been dependent on the coal mining industry and which has, therefore been hit by the contraction of coal mining in recent years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is precisely because the Government have recognised that special structural problems have arisen in the North-East, due, in particular, to the contraction of the two basic industries of coal mining and ship building, that we are making a detailed study of the region in order to see what measures further to the Local Employment Act are necessary to deal with these problems on a regional basis.
I cannot say tonight what these measures will be. We await the detailed proposals of my hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, but I make that point at the beginning of my speech, because I wish to emphasise that the Government recognise that, where there is a structural imbalance in the economy of an area as a whole, as in the North-East and Central Scotland, for instance, additional and special steps may be necessary to offset the effects of the contraction of the traditional heavy industries and to restore the economic balance of the region as a whole through improvements in the social, economic and industrial infrastructure.
The hon. Member has requested that my right hon. Friend should list the Durham rural district as a development district. This raises a question of principle under our present policy. As he knows, this policy is based on the Local Employment Act, under which our assistance is concentrated on the development districts. Indeed, if it were not so, the hon. Gentleman would not be asking us to make the Durham rural district a development district. These districts, which for sound administrative reasons are defined in terms of the Ministry of


Labour employment exchange areas or groups of areas and not by local government boundaries, are those parts of the country where high and persistent unemployment either exists or is threatened. They are, therefore, by definition the areas of the country where in recent years there has been least industrial development proportionate to the size of the working population.
But. happily, the position is not as bad in the Durham Employment Exchange area as in other parts of the North-East. I do not for one moment pretend that there is nothing to be worried about or that the Government would not like to see new industry in the area to offset the decline of the coal mining industry, which has for so long been the chief source of livelihood in the Durham area. It is also true that unemployment in the Durham Employment Exchange area has risen over the past year, particularly amongst men, but at the April count the unemployment rate was 3-5 per cent., which is still well below the rate prevailing in the surrounding development districts. and, indeed, in development districts generally. While one does not like to see anyone out of a job, the fact is that one cannot describe unemployment in the Durham Employment Exchange area as serious by comparison with the development districts.
As the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, most of Durham rural district falls within the Durham Employment Exchange area which goes wider than both the City of Durham and the hon. Member's rural district, because it also includes Brandon and Byshottles. As to why the Ministry of Labour grouped these parishes and the city together, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the 1951 census showed that over 1,500 residents of Brandon and Byshottles worked in Durham and only just over 90 went across the border into Crook. From looking at the map, one might have expected more to have worked in Crook than in Durham. The Ministry of Labour work out the employment exchange areas on the pattern of travel to work. From time to time we have these censuses and the Ministry adjusts the boundaries accordingly. It tries to reflect the pattern of where people go to work. Whether one agrees with the distances people travel or not, this is what, in fact, happens. It is best to be realistic.
As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, three parishes in the Durham rural district are in three different employment exchange areas, all three of which axe development districts. The insured population of the Durham employment exchange area was 28,600 at the 1961 census. The hon. Member may like to have the latest unemployment figures for the Durham Employment Exchange area. In April of this year the figure was 948, which represented 3·5 per cent. of the working population, compared with the year previously when the figure was 2·4 per cent. consisting of 646. The hon. Gentleman might also like to have the figures of the annual averages over the last three years. In 1960, it was 2 per cent.; in 1961, it was 1·7 per cent.; in 1962, it was 2·5 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that conditions in Durham City and in the surrounding countryside are not the same and that the relative prosperity of the former to a large extent masks the severity of the problem in the rural district. I would not deny that there is something in what the hon. Gentleman says, but, as he has rightly pointed out, there is no separate record of the insured population in the rural district, so one cannot say precisely what the rate of unemployment is in the rural district as distinct from the whole employment exchange area.
I agree that, if one could exclude Durham City, the unemployment percentage would be higher for the rest of the employment exchange area, but it is not the policy of the Government to designate small areas as development districts, except in special circumstances—for example, where they are remote from the larger centres of the population. In the case of rural Durham, which surrounds a prosperous city and is at many points within daily travelling distance of other parts of the County—we have mentioned a number—this does not apply.
I said a moment ago that there are administrative reasons for basing a development district on the Ministry of Labour employment exchange areas or groups of areas, as we have done recently in the case of Tyneside. The hon. Member will recall that before 1960 the policy had been to seek to deal with the regional problems of unemployment


by making large areas—the development areas—eligible for financial assistance. This policy had two consequences. First, industry naturally chose the localities most attractive to it because of good communications, labour and amenities, to the neglect of localities less well endowed and often more remote. Secondly, because of the high percentage of the total insured working population contained in these areas, total available assistance both by way of financial assistance from the Exchequer and through the amount of steerable industry which could be located there, was spread very thinly. In the Local Employment Act we introduced a new policy of concentrating available assistance on the particular black spots of high and persistent unemployment.
It would be equally wrong to designate very small areas which do not comprise a single and viable economic unit. The question of defining boundaries has always been one to inflame local passions, and inevitably whatever system is chosen it will seem to those who have the misfortune to be just the wrong side of the line to be lacking in both logic and justice. Equally, if one is to pursue a policy that discriminates in favour of some parts of the country—and since our resources are limited, it is clearly right to do so—there must be some such system. The Ministry of Labour employment exchange areas, or groups of areas, which we have chosen, take account of established patterns of travel to work and provide an objective formula which can be uniformly applied throughout the country for determining the localities in which the benefits of the Act should apply.
I would not go so far as to say that we would not in any circumstances designate a small area such as the Durham rural district, merely because local authority boundaries do not coincide with the employment exchange boundary, but before doing so we would have to be convinced either that there was a high rate of unemployment in the area which was not likely to be reduced by recruitment for industry within the area as a whole, or that there was a probability of persistent high unemployment in the future. We are not at present satisfied that this is the case.

I understand that there are at present seven pits—not six—in the Durham rural area. Of these, four are classified by the National Coal Board in their manpower profile for the Durham division as category A collieries where there will be a need to recruit men either to maintain or to increase manpower. It is not, of course, possible to say what their ultimate prospects may be, but I understand that the "Adventure" pit is the only one which is currently scheduled for closure.
I do not want to minimise the seriousness of this problem, but I think, too, it is only right to take account of the facts which suggest a brighter picture. I realise that even in these pits there has been a run-down in mining employment over the past two years of over 1,000. I am not suggesting that there will be no further redundancies, but I think that the hon. Member will agree that the National Coal Board has an excellent record of redeploying workers made redundant by pit closures over other parts of the coalfield and I am confident that they will continue to do all they can in this direction in the future.
It has been suggested, however, that but for migration the position would be worse than it now is. The Local Employment Act was never intended to cope with the problem of depopulation. It would be useless to pretend that migration has not occurred in the past and, indeed, I believe that we must recognise that an increasing mobility of labour and travelling to work is an integral part of any modern industrial society. As the then President of the Board of Trade said in the House during the Committee stage of the Local Employment Act:
Our resources are limited … as long as they are limited, however, we must concentrate them on the areas where help is needed … and where people are seeking jobs." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 1300]
In fact, if we look at Durham rural district we find that there are a number of jobs in prospect from developments known to the Board of Trade. It is now extremely likely that a firm which has been granted an I.D.C. for a project in the rural district area to employ 700 workers, 600 of whom will be men, will go ahead in the near future. Of this labour force the majority will be drawn


obviously from the surrounding development districts but some will come from the rural district. Three other firms already in the area are undertaking expansions which will provide nearly 200 further jobs, although in this case most of these will be for women.
In all there are about 1,200 jobs in prospect for the Durham Employment Exchange area, whereas at the April count there were 948 registered unemployed. In addition, the Post Office Savings Department is to be moved to the Durham area. A start has already been made, and the Post Office hopes to build up a staff of 600 over the next eighteen months, over 400 of whom will he recruited locally. I can tell the hon. Member that the Post Office has informed me that 200 will be recruited locally this year, and that of the 400 or so jobs available locally over half are likely to be for men.
More jobs—particularly for men—are needed, but a good start has been made, and I believe that the prospects for the area as a whole are good. As the hon. Member has said, the rural district is surrounded by other local employment exchange areas, which are development districts, and there is considerable movement between these areas—Houghton-le-

Spring, Haswell, Chester-le-Street, Spennymoor and Crook—and between these areas and the Durham rural district.
In practice, this means that virtually any worthwhile project in the rural Durham area would be eligible for assistance under the Local Employment Act to the extent that it would employ workers from the surrounding development districts. Development assisted in this way will clearly benefit the area as a whole, including rural Durham, even though it is not listed as a development district itself. Where residents of the Durham rural district register at nearby employment exchanges rather than at the Durham Employment Exchange they will obviously stand to benefit from projects assisted under the Act.
While my right hon. Friend could not agree to put the Durham rural district: area on the list of development districts at the present time, I can assure the hon. Member that this list is kept under constant review—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at four minutes to Twelve o'clock.